Complaints
This profile includes complaints for EasyCare's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see
Customer Complaints Summary
- 152 total complaints in the last 3 years.
- 69 complaints closed in the last 12 months.
If you've experienced an issue
Submit a ComplaintThe complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.
Initial Complaint
Date:10/22/2022
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
Complainant is the original and present OWNER of a 2016 ******* Tucson, VIN____GU151207.On August 24, ********************************************************************************** issued a work order Invoice E21508 which included an item: Radio cuts in and out. The problem was demonstrated to & acknowledged by a *** Service Advisor prior to leaving the vehicle for repair. Owner was advised that a new head unit had to be ordered. *** submitted a claim under OWNER's EasyCare extended warranty contract 1D055HK, expiration date 2/15/2026. Said warranty covers ************************ CD Player and Speakers. Following radio ************ ********* of the deductible by OWNER, the radio problem persisted, sound intermittently cutting in & out; again demonstrated to the same Service Advisor, via voicemail recording. OWNER again brought the vehicle to ***. *** advised that an electronic amplifier also had to be replaced. *** again submitted a claim to EasyCare. The same Service Advisor told OWNER that EasyCare then sent its representative to *** regarding the problem, but then EasyCare informed *** that EasyCare would not pay for the amplifier because during a brief time of visit to *** their representative did not personally witness this intermittent problem despite *** Advisor's witness that the problem persists.EasyCare is in BREACH OF CONTRACT with the ****** OWNER was required to pay $161.34, *** Invoice C23291, 10/20/22, to *** for the required new amplifier due to EasyCare's breach. Moreover, EasyCare is acting in BAD FAITH by now claiming that they have no duty to honor their contract if their particular representative does not personally witness a problem. OWNER & *** are in full compliance with said contract. OWNER demands a refund in the amount of $161.34.
Business Response
Date: 11/17/2022
November 17, 2022
******* Barrett
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ****** & NE *******
Vehicle Service Contract Number: EGT1D055HK
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: **********************************
BBB Complaint Case #: 18299384
Dear ******************,
In accordance with your request,we ask that you accept this letter containing important information regarding the complaint submitted by *******************************, a claim submitted on ************************ behalf by ********* Company in ************, ******* (KBC), and the vehicle service contract (***) referenced above.
As a preliminary matter, please understand that ******************-Valets *** is neither an insurance policy nor is it a warranty, and it does not promise to assist with the correction of everything that could possibly go wrong with *********************** vehicle, cure all symptoms, or comply with every demand for reimbursement made upon it particularly when no defect in material or workmanship to a covered part has been confirmed.
In the case of the recent claim to which ******************-Valet refers, and under the terms and conditions of the ***,the claim was not eligible for coverage due to the following:
1) The *** extends coverage for the repair or replacement of all eligible components and parts that sustain a MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE, solely due to defect(s) in material or workmanship...
2) The *** further clarifies its definition of a MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE as follows: The manufacturer has established tolerances for the express purpose of defining FAILURE and serviceability. When specifications exceed these manufacturers tolerances a FAILURE will be considered to have occurred.
3) In this instance, KBC advised that the same intermittent loss of audio they believed would be corrected with the replacement of the vehicles factory radio assembly a replacement the *** had authorized and reimbursed in the amount of $1,790.00 just days before was still present.
4) KBC theorized that the vehicles factory amplifier may have suffered an internal short, and they requested the ***s required prior repair authorization once again this time to replace the amplifier at an additional cost of $1,352.23.
5) However, upon independent mechanical inspection all aspects of the vehicles audio system functioned normally, with no hint of defect, failure, or objectionable symptom; and no specification exceeding the manufacturers tolerances which resulted from a defect in material or workmanship of any covered part was demonstrated.
6) We understand that ******************-Valet would prefer the Administrator not consider the fact that the amplifier exhibited no failure symptoms or variance from manufacturer specification during the recent independent inspection (which KBC affirmed as well), or that the complaint submitted to the BBB and her statements to the Administrator on September 23, 2022, both indicate the radio unit the *** had previously authorized and which had just been replaced to address the same symptom, had not successfully done so.
7) Of course, it must also be recognized that man-made mechanical, electrical, and/or electronic devices such as the radio unit or amplifier in ******************-Valets vehicle, are incapable of repairing themselves.In other words, if a component truly has suffered a defect in material or workmanship, there is no known reason that duplication and/or demonstration of the characteristics corroborating such a defect, should be absent.
8) Moreover, the *** is unfortunately not an instrument designed to blindly approve the replacement of components on the basis of unverified verbal demand alone; and even though the Administrator is surely not in the habit of retracting the prior authorization its issued all available information dictated the Administrator exhaust due diligence in this regard, to avoid a second potentially expensive, yet unsuccessful component replacement.
9) Section D (1) of the *** stipulates: Upon OUR request, [******************-Valet] must allow the SERVICE AGREEMENT COMPANY to inspect [her] VEHICLE to gather necessary information regarding any claim.
10) Having done as the *** stipulates but finding no defects in materials or workmanship to the amplifier or any other covered part to explain the reported audio symptoms (which were also not present) the foundational prerequisite and threshold for coverage under the ***, was not met.
11) We are uncertain if the supplemental documents provided by ************************ with her complaint, actually reflect replacement of her vehicles amplifier at a total net cost of $161.34 (in part because we are unable to detect an itemized charge associated with an amplifier), or whether that charge instead represents a diagnostic fee, an SPO (Special Part Order) deposit, or some combination; and we have attempted to reach KBC for clarification of that invoices charges several times, without success.
12) If the invoice does and is meant to reflect replacement of the amplifier without the ***s required prior authorization please note that section E (1) of the *** captioned WHAT IS NOT COVERED, specifically excludes coverage for the repair of any MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE When repairs are performed without prior authorization;
13) If the invoice does not and is not meant to reflect replacement of the amplifier, we welcome KBCs return contact when ******************-Valets vehicle is back in their possession, and when they are able to demonstrate a defect in material or workmanship to the amplifier or any other covered component.
14) Upon receipt of such notification and the knowledge that KBC is prepared to demonstrate a MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE, the Administrator will be pleased to resume the claim evaluation, re-assign an independent third-party inspector to verify KBCs updated diagnosis, and do everything possible to justify more coverage under the *** without violating the terms by which it, and ******************-Valet, are bound.
Under these circumstances we believe the Administrator has acted properly and in full compliance with the ***. We are grateful for the privilege of being ******************-Valets *** Administrator, and for the opportunity to have provided $4,796.68 in eligible repair or other benefits thus far during seven consecutive claims prior to the most recent example where no coverable event was demonstrated or verified to have occurred.
If ************************ has any additional questions regarding this claim disposition, she is welcome to contact our office directly by telephone at **************.
Sincerely,
Claims Department
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCOCustomer Answer
Date: 11/18/2022
Complaint: 18299384
I am rejecting this response because: EasyCare is essentially denying the existance of intermittant problems; this is particularly disingenous in the case of an electrical fault in a moving vehicle subject to continual vibrations and repeated jarring of the faulty Audio-Visual system component and its wiring. Moreover, EasyCare is attempting to shift the responsibility for proper diagnosis and repairs implemented from ************ and its employees to complainant (documents already provided with this Complaint when carefully read clearly indicate the condition). EasyCare makes this argument only to avoid reimbursing complainant the amount complainant is out of pocket even though EasyCare admitted paying for the covered AV system in the first attempt at repair by Key (less the $50 deductible complainant also paid). The amplifier replaced later is part of the same AV system: AV unit, wiring, amplifier, speakers, failure in any one of which results in a problem, chronic or intermittant. EasyCare must reimburse complainant the $160.
************************************************-valetBusiness Response
Date: 11/22/2022
November 22, 2022
Customer Relations Representative
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ****** & NE *******
Vehicle Service Contract Number: EGT1D055HK
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: **********************************
BBB Complaint Case #: 18299384
Dear Customer Relations Representative,
Thank you for your email dated November 18, 2022, notifying us of the additional correspondence you have received from *************************-Valet. We have reviewed *****************-Valets comments, but we are unfortunately unable to discern any new,clarifying, responsive, or otherwise corrective information which would permit a change in the coverage decision previously issued and thoroughly explained in our respectful response, dated November 17, 2022.
With regard to the distasteful motives ************************ has chosen to project upon our compassionate response, we further respectfully direct any interested reader to that response once again; a response which we stand by in its entirety, without exception,and without further comment other than to observe that none of unpleasant characteristics alleged are even remotely present or suggested therein. We are compelled to stand by that response for many reasons, not the least of which are because it is true, because it is supported by independent verification, because it is consistent with the *** terms by which ************************ and the Administrator are bound, and because, as explicitly detailed throughout that response, there simply was no defect in material or workmanship to the amplifier present or demonstrated during the Administrators exhaustion of every provision permitted under the ***.
To further document the accuracy and rectitude of the Administrators position, attached to this response please also find a specimen copy of ************************* ***, and an image of the independent inspectors findings provided during the claim to which ************************ refers. You will note that KBCs representative,*********************, explicitly acknowledged that KBC was unable to duplicate *****************-Valets complaint, and that there was no part failure (NPF) present. To be sure, the Administrator is most certainly NOT denying the possibility of intermittent symptom(s), nor is it shifting the responsibility for proper diagnosis away from the only parties to whom the *** explicitly assigns those responsibilities; but it no more has the authority to repudiate the independent testimony of not only a third-party inspector but ********* Companys own representative, and invent an eligible defect in material or workmanship that DOES NOT exist, than it would to arbitrarily defy the demonstration and independent verification of one that DID exist.
The interested reader will also note the ***s admonition that NO PERSON HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THIS *** OR TO WAIVE ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS.
Nevertheless, despite those realities and the apparent choice ******************-Valet has made to avoid the Administrators sincere attempt to work toward the additional coverage she seeks, we will again offer and re-state those potential paths to resolution once more, in full pursuit of additional coverage under the ***, and precisely as the Better Business Bureau intends when it suggests what steps can be taken by both parties to resolve this matter. To that end, we remind ******************-Valet of the following:
1) We are uncertain if the supplemental documents provided by ************************ with her complaint, actually reflect replacement of her vehicles amplifier at a total net cost of $161.34 (in part because we are unable to detect an itemized charge associated with an amplifier), or whether that charge instead represents a diagnostic fee, an SPO (Special Part Order) deposit, or some combination; and we have attempted to reach ********* Company in ************, ******* (KBC), for clarification of that invoices charges several times, without success.
May we ask ************************ to explicitly clarify the answers to these questions? Unhappily, the Administrator has once again attempted to reach her repair facility several more times, and has left several more messages for her service advisor to please explain the content and representative charges; but we still have not received any callback.
2) If the invoice does and is meant to reflect replacement of the amplifier without the ***s required prior authorization please note that section E (1) of the *** captioned WHAT IS NOT COVERED, specifically excludes coverage for the repair of any MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE When repairs are performed without prior authorization;
To address this contractual provision, may we again ask ******************-Valet to explicitly confirm whether her vehicles amplifier has in fact been replaced? If it has been replaced, does the expense of $161.34 represent all charges for all parts and all labor necessary to replace the amplifier, without exception? We hope you will excuse what may appear to the uninitiated as a nonsensical purpose in asking such a question. However, what would seem even more nonsensical and thereby deserving of reconciliation is the question: "If the current MSRP of the amplifier is $1,192.23, as KBC originally estimated how is it that the same amplifier could be replaced for $161.34? And, if $161.34 does not represent the total cost to replace the vehicles amplifier then precisely what DOES it represent?Exactly what parts and what labor is ************************ demanding compensation from the *** for? Is ************************ stating that her vehicles amplifier has been replaced, that the total incurred cost to replace the amplifier was $161.34, and that the amplifiers replacement has eliminated all the symptoms she advises were experienced before its replacement, intermittent or otherwise?
3) If the invoice does not and is not meant to reflect replacement of the vehicle's amplifier, we would of course welcome KBCs return contact when ******************-Valets vehicle is back in their possession, and when they are able to demonstrate a defect in material or workmanship to the amplifier or any other covered component.This is precisely the path to coverage permitted by ***; the same *** which has provided coverage for seven consecutive claims totaling $4,796.68 in eligible repair or other benefits thus far; and its the only instrument under which any current or future coverage may be applied.
4) Upon receipt of such notification and the knowledge that KBC is prepared to demonstrate a MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE, the Administrator will be pleased to resume the claim evaluation, re-assign an independent third-party inspector to verify KBCs updated diagnosis, and do everything possible to justify more coverage under the *** without violating the terms by which it, and ******************-Valet, are bound.
5) If ******************-Valet would be so kind as to provide the specific clarifications above, the Administrator will evaluate that input to see which may present the best opportunity to assist further, and/or to determine if there are even other examples of good faith or accommodation possible.
Beyond that, however, the *** simply does NOT promise to unconditionally reimburse out of pocket expenses based upon a mistaken supposition that previous reimbursements issued in accordance with the ***'s provisions during one or in this case seven prior claims; somehow license future reimbursements when the ***s conditions have NOT been met. Each claim is adjusted and administered on its own merit, no past claim dictates coverage or denial of a future claim based upon its existence alone.
Sincerely,
Claims Department
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCOCustomer Answer
Date: 11/23/2022
Complaint: 18299384
I am rejecting this response because:
Once again EasyCare attempts to obfuscate the claim rather than admit its liability for a mere $161.**, for which Owner has submitted all the documentation in its possession. It asks for a demonstration of the problem when *** has already repaired the problem; how exactly is one supposed to do that? The invoices already submitted show that Key required a payment by the Owner of approximately 10% of the cost of the amplifier already replaced and working perfectly since the time of the last invoice which they required because EasyCare's rep did not witness the problem on their visit to Key (when Owner was not present). Not only did ***'s rep **** witness the problem at the time of the radio unit repair, when the problem reoccurred Owners left an electronic voice mail on his phone while the problem was reoccurring due to the faulty amplifier circuitry so that no claim could be made that "we could not reproduce the problem," the argument that EasyCare now is be relying upon. Owner will contact **** and ask him to respond to EasyCare's attempts, if any, to verify. Again, respectfully, EasyCare is denying coverage for a failed part unambiguously included in coverage. It is EasyCare that is acting in bad faith and casting aspersions back on the Owner and its Dealer rather than reimbursing Owner their due.
************************************************-valetInitial Complaint
Date:10/11/2022
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
Company simply do not answer the phone. I have called on several occasions only to listen to a recording for over 30 minutes, finally giving up.Business Response
Date: 11/07/2022
November 7, 2022
******* Barrett
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ****** & NE *******
Vehicle Service Contract Number: EGTBD5D204
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: ***********************
BBB Complaint Case #: 18199492
Dear ******************,
We are in receipt of your email dated October 12, 2022, notifying us of the complaint your office has received from *********************** in connection with his recent claim experience and inability to reach a customer service representative at our office. Please allow us to say that we greatly appreciate the time that **************** has taken to write and share his concerns,and to further state that we understand how frustrating an unsatisfactory customer experience can be. In this instance, and although we are uncertain of the specific date(s)/time(s) on or at which *************** initiated the unsuccessful attempts to reach the Administrator, we are terribly sorry that he was apparently unable to do so. Indeed, whether the examples he describes were the result of technical/electronic/equipment-related obstacles, were exacerbated by a wave of sheer but unforeseen call volume, or were due to other factors unknown; **************** experience does not reflect the high standards of quality service that we continually strive to provide for our vehicle service contract (VSC) holders every day.
With respect to the then ongoing claim which we understand was the primary purpose of **************** call(s), upon receipt of your email notice we contacted his chosen repair facility and presented authorization for the repair of eligible components that facility had demonstrated evidence of having suffered the VSCs requisite defect in material or workmanship. The facility advised they would be reviewing the authorization and claim status with ****************, and shortly thereafter a customer service representative from our office did reach out to the gentleman to explain the same information, and to clarify any of his remaining questions or concerns.
We very much appreciate the privilege of being **************** VSC Administrator, and we are pleased to have been able to provide $6,471.66 in repair benefits thus far during his VSC term. We hope that this recent atypical experience will not irretrievably tarnish **************** opinion of his VSC or its Administrator,and we look forward to the opportunity to apply future coverage in accordance with the VSCs provisions during the remainder of its effective period, which our records indicate will continue until December 19, 2023, or a total vehicle odometer reading of ******* miles, whichever first occurs.
Sincerely,
Claims Department
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCOInitial Complaint
Date:10/03/2022
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
I have a warranty with this company. I took my truck with the dealership and they found an issue with the transmission. GM sent a letter to the dealership and said the transmission should be replaced due to the issues with it. Easy Care told the dealership needs to tear down the transmission. If it's torn out and Easy Care doesn't cover it, I will have to pay for it. They've already been told it needs to be replaced. They have the letter from GM.Business Response
Date: 10/20/2022
October 20, 2022
***************************;
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ****** & NE *******
Vehicle Service Contract Number: EST2E9F113
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: *****************************
BBB Complaint Case #: 18159335
Dear ******************,
In accordance with your request, we ask that you accept this letter containing important information regarding the complaint submitted by *****************************, a recent claim submitted on his behalf by ********************************** County (BCSC), and the ******************** service contract (***) referenced above.
Unfortunately, under the terms and conditions of Mr. ********** ***, and at the time the gentleman filed his complaint with your office, the claim was determined ineligible due to the following:
1) The *** extends coverage for the repair or replacement of all eligible components and parts that sustain a MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE, solely due to defect(s) in material or workmanship..., and which are not otherwise obstructed by an exclusion stipulated in section E, WHAT IS NOT COVERED.
2) The ***s definition of a MECHNICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE is clarified as follows: The manufacturer has established tolerances for the express purpose of defining FAILURE and serviceability. When specifications exceed those manufacturers tolerances a FAILURE will be considered to have occurred.
3) The *** further stipulates that ********************** must give [his] authorization to the repair facility for teardown to diagnose a problem.
4) In this instance, and as verified upon the first of two independent third-party mechanical inspections, although BCSC was able to duplicate several transmission related symptoms the true underlying cause for those symptoms, whether the cause represented a defect in material or workmanship to a covered part, and/or what would be required to remedy those symptoms, was undiagnosed and undetermined.
5) Accordingly, the Administrator asked BCSC to obtain Mr. ********** authorization for the minimum level of diagnosis and/or teardown required to determine the presence and extent of any MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE, and to notify us as soon as they were able so that we may resume the claim evaluation.
6) The Administrator never denied the claim, and it is unaware of a letter from GM which instructs a technician to replace a transmission assembly in the absence of performing the requisite diagnosis to determine why such a replacement would be necessary.
7) Upon receipt of your complaint notification, our office contacted BCSC to check on the status of their diagnosis of the reported symptoms. We were informed that ********************** had chosen to remove his unrepaired ******************** from their location, without authorizing the requisite diagnosis.
Nevertheless, we are pleased to report that ********************** subsequently returned his ******************** to BCSC and authorized the diagnosis of his transmission; whereupon BCSC reported their findings to the Administrator, and the second of two independent mechanical inspections was able to verify eligible defects in material or workmanship to several internal transmission components. The Administrator then promptly authorized replacement of the transmission in Mr.********** ******************** with a remanufactured assembly sourced by BCSC, and later added substitute transportation benefit coverage as well, to the limit of the ***s liability. Our understanding is that the repair of Mr. ********** ******************** is now underway, if it has not already been completed.
Under these circumstances, we believe the Administrator has acted properly and in full compliance with the ***. We are grateful for the privilege of being Mr. ********** *** Administrator and are confident his concerns have been resolved. According to our records,the *** will remain in full force and effect until January 11, ****, or a total ******************** odometer reading of ******* miles, whichever first occurs, and we look forward to the opportunity to provide future assistance during the remainder of the ***s active term. If ********************** has any additional questions regarding this claim disposition, he is welcome to contact our office directly by telephone at **************.
Sincerely,
Claims Department
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCOInitial Complaint
Date:09/16/2022
Type:Status:ResolvedMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
I purchased a extended warranty for my 2016 gmc **** HD in 2017 from ******************* in *********** ** last week my truck broke down and I took it to ******* and showed them the extended warranty they diagnosed the problem I need a new transmission on Monday they called the warranty company and have done all that was asked the warranty company even sent an adjuster out a week later and I am without a vehicle and the warranty company has still not approved the repair nor honored the contract and gave me a rental carBusiness Response
Date: 10/11/2022
October 11, 2022
******* Barrett
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ****** & NE *******
Vehicle Service Contract Number: EGT1M00UUW
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: ********************
BBB Complaint Case #: 18037686
Dear ******************,
In accordance with your request,we ask that you accept this letter containing important information regarding the complaint submitted by *****************, and the vehicle service contract (***) referenced above. Naturally, there is never a good time for any automobile breakdown to occur; nor can it be said that any delays which may take place during the repair of such a breakdown are welcome, or convenient. On the contrary,breakdowns seem to happen at the most IN-opportune time, and as the *** Administrator we certainly share Mr. **** preference for prompt authorization of all eligible claims. At the same time, we must recognize that automatic transmissions are intricate assemblies which cannot be instantaneously diagnosed; and the *** is not a warranty, nor does it promise immediate authorization of every demand in the absence of the due diligence its Administrator is obligated to perform.
In this instance, the Administrator was made aware of the symptom ********** was experiencing with his vehicles transmission, when it received a call from his repair facility,************************ (CBG) on September 12, 2022. On September 13, 2022, following the diagnosis CBG performed with Mr. **** authorization, the Administrator attempted to expedite the claim process in part by obtaining digital images of all the failed components diagnosed, as well as the overall vehicle, VIN,odometer reading, etc.; in the hope that an on-site independent mechanical inspection could be avoided. CBG was happy to assist with that effort, but while awaiting the images the Administrator decided to arrange for the independent inspection anyway, lest the images not arrive or be delayed to the point we would have regretted not requesting the physical inspection instead of the digital images CBG was to provide. Alas, the best intention of each effort was thwarted when the images were not all received until the morning of September 14, 2022, they did not contain the vehicles odometer reading, AND the inspectors schedule resulted in another brief delay meaning he could not arrive at CBG until September 15,2022.
In any event, the Administrator did receive and review the inspectors findings, contacted ********** to clarify the usage of his vehicle due to the class III receiver hitch and multiple tow ball setups present in the vehicle (which could have indicated a severe service maintenance interval per *************** but which we were unaware of prior to the independent inspection), applied the *** terms to those findings and that input, then provided CBG with authorization to overhaul the transmission to the limit of the ***s liability on the afternoon of September 16, 2022 prior to the arrival of your complaint notification. Subsequently, the Administrator received CBGs October 5, 2022 invoice reflecting successful completion of the transmission overhaul, and issued payment to them on Mr. **** behalf in the amount of $3,834.71 shortly thereafter.
Under these circumstances, we believe the Administrator has acted properly and in full compliance with the *** in all respects; even as we hope the day arrives when modern automatic transmissions may be diagnosed, disassembled, inspected, overhauled, reinstalled,and returned in properly functioning condition to their owners with or without the benefit of a *** in an exceedingly more rapid timeframe. Until then, may we state that we are grateful for the privilege of being Mr. **** *** Administrator, that the *** does also provide up to 6 days of rental reimbursement at $30.00 per day when associated with a covered claim to help ameliorate the inevitable inconvenience of any repair visit, and that we look forward to the opportunity to assist with future coverage for eligible repairs presented in accordance with the *** terms. Our records indicate the *** will remain in full force and effect until October 11, 2023, or a total vehicle odometer reading of ****** miles, whichever first occurs. If ********** has any additional questions regarding this claim disposition, he is welcome to contact our office directly by telephone at **************.
Sincerely,
Claims Department
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCOCustomer Answer
Date: 10/12/2022
Better Business Bureau:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
*****************Initial Complaint
Date:09/01/2022
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
The business was paid $483.00 (copy of contract not included- but I have) when I leased the car Nov 11, 2019 for tire and wheel repair during the duration of the lease thru Nov 11, 2022 (three year lease). I have copy of contract. October 8, 2020 had a blowout had to completely replace tire (have receipt) that was $271.26. Got the run around never received any money. Now Sept. 2022 on highway and there were debris in the road flew up and marred my painted wheels. Minor damage however I had Easy Care I thought and have gotten run around now for 2 weeks filed claim like before I have the claim number no one replied now today after called three other numbers they are saying no claim. Dealership is not making any headway either. I would like all my money back they have not now paid on any of these tire/wheel issues no one ever calls back. ************************** and ************ just three of phone numbers that have been called. This is clearly a scam or they only honor certain people like (men) on their contracts or don't want to deal with women. Would never recommend this to any other persons looking to add this for coverage. No claims have been honored I have never received any monies. ****************** ************ I alsoBusiness Response
Date: 09/28/2022
September 28, 2022
******* Barrett
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ****** & NE *******
Vehicle Service Contract Number: SPXE019A69
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: ****************************
BBB Complaint Case #: 17810957
Dear ******************,
In accordance with your request,we ask that you accept this letter containing important information regarding the complaint submitted by *************************, and the vehicle service contract (***)referenced above.
Unfortunately, under the terms and conditions of ****************** ***, reimbursement for the tire replacement which took place on October 8, 2020, was ineligible for coverage due to the following:
1) Specifically outlined in sections 8 (A), (B), and (C) of the ***s TERMS, CONDITIONS AND CLAIMS PROCEDURES, are the respective instructions for how to obtain each of the ***s available benefits, including the explicit requirement that prior authorization be obtained, by the prescribed method.
2) Similar alerts may be found immediately above the Customers Signature line on the first page of the *** where the Customer acknowledges that they understand authorization from the Administrator must be received before any repairs are performed under this VEHICLE SERVICE CONTRACT (***).
3) Additional warnings may also be found in bold font at the bottom of the first and last pages of the *** which state: NO PAYMENT FOR SERVICES WILL BE MADE WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR, SEE SECTION 8. HOW TO OBTAIN SERVICE.
4) Moreover, section 4 (C) of the *** (with respect to the tire replacement ****************** reports), specifically excludes: Any replacement or repair made without OUR prior authorization.
5) According to our records, the Administrator first learned of what we now understand to be the same October 2020 tire replacement referred to in the current complaint, approximately 1 years later when we received a telephone call and request from *******************Unhappily, our customer service representative was obligated to apologize to ****************** at that time and explain that the *** would be unable to assist with reimbursement, given the multiple contractual exclusions.
6) The Administrator is unable to speculate or comment regarding the run around ****************** mentions in the complaint but is also unable to unilaterally dismiss, alter, waive, or ignore the *** terms by which it, and ****************** are bound.
7) Nevertheless, and although there was no obligation to do so, upon receipt of your complaint notification the Administrator proceeded with assistance for the October 2020 tire replacement charges, as if they were eligible under the ***, as a goodwill gesture in the interest of customer satisfaction.
8) A corresponding check made payable to ****************** in the amount of $252.75 was issued and mailed to her address shortly thereafter, and we expect it should soon arrive in her possession; if it has not already.
With regard to the marred painted wheel finish ****************** reports, the Administrator promptly contacted the third-party vendor which provides the cosmetic wheel repair service offered under the ***, on the date your complaint notification arrived: September 1, 2022. At that time, we were informed that following some inadvertent confusion regarding an incorrect address the day before, they had re-assigned service to ***************** at a more suitable, closer location. Alas, the vendor was then advised by ****************** that she no longer wished to pursue the cosmetic wheel repair. Of course, if ****************** wishes to resume an evaluation of potential repair of the marred wheel finish, she is welcome to follow the procedures outlined in section 8 (A) of the ***, prior to its expiration.
Lastly, while we certainly appreciate and sympathize with the frustration expressed by ****************** in her complaint, as the *** Administrator we must respectfully reply that our diligent review of all available information finds no match whatsoever for the remaining unseemly sentiments alleged therein.
We are grateful for the privilege of being ****************** *** Administrator and are pleased that goodwill coverage was able to be applied in this instance. According to our records the *** will remain in effect until November 11, 2022, and we look forward to the opportunity to provide further assistance in accordance with the ***s terms should the circumstance arise during its active term.
Sincerely,
Claims Department
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCOInitial Complaint
Date:08/31/2022
Type:Status:ResolvedMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
I have filed a claim with them to get a refund for my gap insurance cancelation. All I have had is dead ends.Business Response
Date: 09/26/2022
September 26, 2022
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ******, & NE *******
235 ***************
Suite 900
*******, ** 30303
Posted using BBB Online Complaint System
Re: Borrower: ***************************
*** Enrollment: ***1K069Y2
To Whom it may concern:
Automobile Protection Corporation [Hereinafter APCO] is in receipt of your correspondence dated August 31, 2022, in connection with a recent request for a cancellation of ****************** *** Deficiency Waiver Addendum.We have researched our records regarding this matter and ask that you please accept the information contained herein to response to the concerns expressed in your correspondence. Your patience in awaiting our reply is very much appreciated.
The customer had requested cancellation of his *** Deficiency Waiver Addendum via electronic online request on 3/28/2022. Our office processed the cancellation on May 5,2022. Please note that APCO was not paid the entire purchase price charged for the *** Deficiency Waiver Addendum, but rather, APCO was paid a fee by the dealership to act as the administrator. The full purchase price was paid to the dealership that sold the *** Waiver, ******* Chevrolet. APCO credited the selling dealer for the refund of the administrator portion of the total amount due to be refunded to the customer.
Upon receipt of your notification that a complaint had been filed, our office contacted the dealership in an effort to obtain the status of the cancellation. The dealership has been unresponsive, and has not confirmed issuance of any refund to ****************. Our office has reinstated the Waiver, and then cancelled it again with **************** as the payee. The check payable to **************** has been sent via Fed Ex with a tracking number of ************ and is expected to be delivered today, September 26, 2022.
We trust the information contained herein addresses the concerns expressed in ****************** complaint. Should either you or **************** have additional concerns, please contact me directly so that review of such may be expedited.
Sincerely,
******************************
*** Claims Analyst
Automobile Protection CorporationCustomer Answer
Date: 09/26/2022
Better Business Bureau:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. But it should have never gotten this far!
Sincerely,
***************************Initial Complaint
Date:08/25/2022
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
Around June of this year my car needed a repair done to the transmission. *************** decided they will no longer accept extended warranties on vehicles. So they gave me a free diagnosis for the car and told me exactly what was the problem. I was able to find a shop that will accept payment but the warranty company didn't believe the diagnosis from *************** and called the shop and me a liar. For almost a 2 weeks I had to explain to Easycare the "transmission" body valve is part of the "transmission". They were telling me that it's not part of the transmission even though it literally has "transmission" in part of the name. I believe this company never intended to cover any expense that was part of my contract that I signed and I believe this company to operating on fraudulent activity. I'm currently stuck with a broken car and out of $10,000 just because the company's technician whom sn't even Audi certified believe the diagnosis from *************** is wrong. This has been a nightmare for me and my family.Business Response
Date: 09/19/2022
September 19, 2022
***************************;
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ****** & NE *******
Vehicle Service Contract Number: EGTEE2B127
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: ***************************
BBB Complaint Case #: 17770374
Dear ******************,
In accordance with your request,we ask that you accept this response to the complaint submitted by *************************, in connection with a claim and request for prior repair authorization submitted under ******************** ******************** service contract (***), referenced above.
Please understand that the claim to which **************** refers, has not been denied; and we offer the following corrections/clarifications in reply to the gentlemans perceptions:
1) Ms. ********* PRIMARYCare *** provided that the specific components itemized in categories #1-10 were eligible for coverage and repair reimbursement in the event of a MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE, solely due to a defect in material or workmanship of those specific components.
2) On May 5, 2022, the *** Administrator received three consecutive calls from **************** to advise a) that his fiancs (***************************) ******************** was at a repair facility & that the repair facility had informed them the ******************** required a transmission valve body repair, b) that the intended repair facility was an Audi dealership that did not wish to participate in a claim administered by the **** and c) to explore alternate claim procedures if the Audi dealership refused to contact the Administrator.
3) In response, the Administrator compassionately a) explained the ***s claim procedures, the ***s required prior authorization, and that the transmission valve body was eligible for coverage pending his repair facilitys call and duly performed evaluation of the claim by the Administrator, b) again explained the ***s claim process, adding that reimbursement for a covered claim authorized pursuant to the *** could be issued to the contract holder rather than the repair facility if that were Ms. ********* choice; but that the Administrator must still be given the opportunity to evaluate the claim and provide the requisite prior authorization if the requested repair was determined to be covered, and c) offered to contact the Audi dealer in the reverse direction in a good faith attempt to overcome whatever obstacles they may perceive, in part using the information **************** then relayed from the Audi dealer to the Administrator.
4) Shortly thereafter on May 5, 2022, the Administrator documented the information **************** had relayed from ************ (AB), which included a recommendation and request to replace the transmissions valve body assembly, in order to correct an engine NO CRANK NO START condition, at a cost of nearly $6,700.00.
5) Notwithstanding what some may have considered an outwardly appearing oddity that an internal transmission component could interfere with an engine start, the Administrator reached a representative of AB on behalf of ********************, and diligently attempted to gain their cooperation to demonstrate the valve body failure they suspected to an independent mechanical inspector, per section D (1) of the **** and so coverage for its replacement could be validated and justified through customary due diligence.
6) AB advised that they were either unwilling or unable to do so.
7) While we certainly sympathizes with Mr. ******* frustration, the Administrators position had nothing whatsoever to do with a supposed disbelief of ABs diagnosis or an arbitrary conclusion that their diagnosis was wrong; and the Administrator most certainly did not call anyone a liar, nor did it dispute or need to be convinced that a valve body is an internal transmission component.
8) Nevertheless, the *** does not permit the Administrator to automatically authorize replacement of every component that has the word transmission in its name; nor does it permit pre-emptive, blind authorization of any repair especially one as significant and costly as the one suggested by AB while being refused its right and responsibility to gather the necessary information regarding any claim, such as that which could be obtained via independent mechanical inspection.
9) As **************** indicates, he located an alternate facility willing to participate in the ***s claim process, and on June 1, 2022, ********************* in ****************, **** (DRA) advised the Administrator that Ms. ********* ******************** was at their location, with ******* miles on its odometer, and that they were prepared to demonstrate the suspected defect in material or workmanship to the transmission valve body.
10) However, when a third-party mechanical inspector arrived at DRA, he was presented with only a printout of the ********* Services AB had previously supplied to **************** and was informed that they would be unable to demonstrate a failure to the valve body due to a lack of voltage at DCL pin **, which is integral and indispensable to the communication among the Powertrain Control Module and the Transmission Control Module, as well as other control modules.
11) The inspector concluded that what he was shown was consistent only with the need to diagnosis terminal/pin **, that no failure of the transmission valve body could be verified, and a representative of DRA signed the inspectors report without addition or comment, indicating agreement with its limited conclusion.
12) Despite the fact that neither AB nor DRA had demonstrated a defect to the transmission valve body, the Administrator attempted to apply the benefit of any doubt in favor of Ms. *********** offered DRA authorization for its replacement under the **** on the condition that they would accept responsibility for their own submitted diagnosis and repair request, and that if valve body replacement they requested was NOT effective in remedying the ********************s symptom(s), that the authorization would be rescinded and re-applied to whatever WAS then found to be the true cause, IF that alternate cause were eligible under the ***.
13) DRA refused even that accommodation, indicating that they were now uncomfortable standing behind the valve body diagnosis, stated that there has to be more to the no-start condition (than a valve body), and insisting that they no longer wanted to have anything to do with Ms. ********* ******************** (?).
14) Respectfully, findings such as these could be related to anything from a poor/corroded electrical connection to a transmission valve body, anything in-between, or even something far outside that range of suspicion; some of which may be eligible for repair or replacement under the **** and others of which may not be.
15) Indeed, some brief internet research suggests the rare but realistic possibility that the no-start symptom ******************** experienced, and/or the mysterious lack of terminal 15 voltage DRA found, could be caused by something as simple defective relay.Of course, neither the *** nor the Administrator diagnose any ********************, and neither are claiming to know for certain what caused the no-start condition in this instance. Whatever the cause, the Administrator is happy to evaluate the professional diagnosis of any licensed repair facility, in a good faith effort to apply coverage.
16) However, what the *** or ******************** for that matter cannot and should not be expected to do, is blindly foot the bill to replace components based on a belief that they MIGHT be failed, or COULD be failed, based no evidence and no demonstration other than conjecture or the demand itself.
17) To date, the Administrator has not heard back from DRA or another licensed repair facility of Ms. ********* choice with information related to an updated, confirmed diagnosis they are prepared to demonstrate; nor can it explain why DRA retreated from the valve body diagnosis they provided.
Under these circumstances, we believe the Administrator has acted properly and in full compliance with the terms and conditions of Ms. ********* ***. Since the *** expired by time on May 25, 2022, it would be unable to address any future claim or additional/different request for its required prior repair authorization. However, IF Ms.********* ******************** currently has the same odometer reading of ******* miles which the inspector verified while it at DRA, the Administrator would be agreeable to a resumption of the same claim and its unrepaired engine no-start condition,as a goodwill gesture in the interest of customer satisfaction.
To that end, we invite contact from Ms. ********* repair facility when/if the ******************** is returned to their possession, and we will evaluate any new or additional information they are able to provide with Ms. ********* approval, otherwise in accordance with and pursuant to all of the ***s terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions, as long as the ********************s odometer reading has remained unchanged, and with the understanding that if the *** cannot assist, she would be responsible for all costs.
Beyond that, we are grateful for the privilege to have been Ms. ********* *** Administrator while it was active. If there are additional questions or concerns regarding this claim disposition, ******************** is welcome to contact our office directly by telephone at **************.
Sincerely,
Claims Department
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCOInitial Complaint
Date:07/28/2022
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
April 4, 2018 I purchased a 2012 ***** Tahoe with and life time warranty. On July 4, 2022 my transmission failed. The Chevrolet dealership filed a claim. My car has been at the dealership for several weeks the refuse to approve the repair although I have provided all of the service records. The dealership and my self keep getting conflicting stories. They are still refusing to repair my car.Business Response
Date: 08/22/2022
August 22, 2022
******* Barrett
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ****** & NE *******
Limited Warranty Contract Number:PWR1K01UJZ
Limited Warranty Contract Holder:***********************
BBB Complaint Case #: 17638841
Dear ******************,
In accordance with your request,we ask that you accept this letter in response to the complaint submitted by ***********************, and the POWERLIFE Limited Warranty Contract (****) provided at no cost to **************** by her Issuing Dealer, **********************. (SMS),referenced above.
As a preliminary matter, please understand that our office was appointed by SMS to perform the sole function of administering the ****, and in that capacity, we are not responsible to fulfill any obligation to repair or replace components or provide benefits of any kind. In addition, NO PERSON HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THIS LIMITED WARRANTY OR TO WAIVE ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS.
Unfortunately, according to all available information, documentation, and the terms, conditions, limitations,and exclusions of the ****, the recent claim to which **************** refers has been determined ineligible for coverage due to the following:
1) To qualify for repairs or replacement under the ****, proof of timely performance of all scheduled maintenance as recommended by Ms. ******* vehicle manufacturer, and/or as may otherwise be specified in Section B of the ****, entitled YOUR RESPONSIBILTIES, must be kept by her and furnished to the Administrator upon request.
2) A diligent review of the documentation submitted by or on Ms. ******* behalf to support performance of the manufacturer recommended and/or ****-required maintenance, reveals omissions/excesses beyond the PLWCs established grace ****** for such maintenance intervals, and/or consists of documents which are either unverifiable, or which conflict or are inconsistent with other such proofs of maintenance that are verifiable.
3) Among those missing/late and/or inconsistent or unverifiable services include: two hand-written representations/estimates which are both missing verifiable vehicle information or itemized billing to account for the related parts & labor, which confusingly suggest (or estimate) the very same spark plug replacement and transmission fluid service within approximately ***** miles of one another, and which would not be due for another ****** miles had the first example actually been a verifiable proof of maintenance; a handwritten receipt ostensibly representing a coolant service, air filter(s), and yet another spark plug change but on a date and at an odometer reading that is implausible when compared to the verifiable engine oil and filter proofs of maintenance which precede and follow it, etc.
4) Section D (9) of the **** entitled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, specifically excludes Any costs if verifiable receipts as required in section B. YOUR RESPONSIBILTIES are not furnished on request.
Regrettably, unless verifiable receipts documenting compliance with section B of the **** are forthcoming,examples of non-compliance such as those noted above would invalidate the ****,and consequently, any reimbursement for current or future repair(s) under its terms.
We are grateful for the privilege of being Ms. ******* **** Administrator, and regret that coverage cannot be applied in this instance. Should **************** have any additional questions regarding this claim disposition, she is welcome to contact our office directly by telephone at: **************.
Sincerely,
Claims Department
**** AdministratorInitial Complaint
Date:07/27/2022
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
I am having issues trying to get my money back from GAP warranty I purchased. The dealer is telling me that GAP can send payment directly to me but GAP is telling me they have to send money to dealer and then the dealer said it will Be sent to lien holder. Causing me not to get payment for several months. I have a paid in full letter from lender advising that they are not owed anything and to contact easy care for a check to be sent to me I keep getting the runaround. I would like a full refund expedited to me overnight for payment for GAP account number ************ request number ******Business Response
Date: 08/05/2022
August 4,2022
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ******, & NE *******
235 ***************
Suite 900
*******, ** 30303
Posted using BBB Online Complaint System
Re: Borrower: ***********************
*** Enrollment: ***FAC9DEC04
To Whom it may concern:
Automobile Protection Corporation [Hereinafter APCO] is in receipt of your correspondence dated July 27, 2022, in connection with a recent request for a cancellation of Mr. ****** *** Deficiency Waiver Addendum. We have researched our records regarding this matter and ask that you please accept the information contained herein to response to the concerns expressed in your correspondence. Your patience in awaiting our reply is very much appreciated.
The customer had requested cancellation of his *** Deficiency Waiver Addendum via email on July 8, 2022. Our office processed the cancellation on July 25, 2022. Please note that APCO was not paid the entire purchase price charged for the *** Deficiency Waiver Addendum, but rather,APCO was paid a fee by the dealership to act as the administrator. The full purchase price was paid to the dealership that sold the *** Waiver, *************** ********. APCO has credited the selling dealer for the refund of the administrator portion of the total amount due to be refunded to the customer.
Upon receipt of your notification that a complaint had been filed, our office contracted the dealership in an effort to obtain the status of the cancellation. The dealership has informed our office they received a cancellation request from the lender, Santander, instructing the dealership to issue the refund to them directly at which time ********* would issue the customer his refund directly. Please find a copy of that letter included for your records.
We trust the information contained herein addresses the concerns expressed in Mr. ****** complaint. Should either you or ************** have additional concerns, please contact me directly so that review of such may be expedited.
Sincerely,
******************************
*** Claims Analyst
Automobile Protection CorporationCustomer Answer
Date: 08/05/2022
Complaint: 17633052
I am rejecting this response because: the Lender said the letter that was sent was a form letter and the dealership could issue me a check directly instead of having to wait over a month or more for reimbursement. I am requesting you contact the dealer immediately to issue payment directly to me or that you the company issue the payment directly to me. Please issue a check and overnight it to me for reimbursement.
Sincerely,
***********************Business Response
Date: 08/10/2022
August 10,2022
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ******, & NE *******
235 ***************
Suite 900
*******, ** 30303
Posted using BBB Online Complaint System
Re: Borrower: ***********************
*** Enrollment: ***FAC9DEC04
To Whom it may concern:
Automobile Protection Corporation [Hereinafter APCO] is in receipt of your correspondence dated August 6, 2022,in connection Mr. ****** rejection of APCOs response to his recent complaint regarding the cancellation of his *** Deficiency Waiver Addendum.
APCO must respectfully refer ************** to the dealership from which the *** Deficiency Waiver Addendum was purchased, *************** ********, for any further clarification of the status of his refund.To reiterate our previous response, APCO was paid only a nominal fee to act as the administrator for the *** Deficiency Waiver Addendum. The full purchase price of the *** Deficiency Waiver Addendum was paid to the dealership, and the dealership is the entity responsible for the process of issuing any monies for the cancellation. APCO is unable to influence or force the dealership to alter their internal procedures for disbursement of refunds, nor is APCO able to issue a refund for monies it was not paid.
We trust the information contained herein addresses the additional concerns expressed in Mr. ****** complaint. Should you have additional concerns, please contact me directly so that review of such may be expedited.
Sincerely,
******************************
*** Claims Analyst
Automobile Protection CorporationCustomer Answer
Date: 08/10/2022
Complaint: 17633052
I am rejecting this response because: The dealer advised the *** company could send me the refund directly. I am requesting they overnight me a payment for this *** warranty.
Sincerely,
***********************Initial Complaint
Date:07/23/2022
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
This company is sending me text messages and emails stating that I am a customer, and I have never signed up for their service nor do I want to be contacted by them. They are illegally contacting me and billing me. I am NOT a customer and do not want their service and I want them to stop contacting me.Business Response
Date: 08/09/2022
August 9, 2022
******* Barrett
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ****** & NE *******
Vehicle Service Contract Number: ESTAFACFA4
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: *****************************
BBB Complaint Case #: 17614534
Dear ******************,
Thank you for your email dated July 23, 2022, regarding a complaint submitted by ***************************** under the above-referenced Complaint ID. We have located a vehicle service contract (***) and a pair of recent claims using the limited information provided by ******************, which we believe corresponds to his vehicle and the concerns expressed in his complaint. We very much appreciate the time ****************** has taken to share his comments; although we are naturally disappointed to learn of his dissatisfaction.
Please allow us to further acknowledge we are somewhat confused to learn that ****************** may be unaware of his ***,the information he volunteered at the time of its purchase, and/or the recent claims during which the *** Administrator has been pleased to issue $1,851.73 in prior repair authorizations applicable the 2020 **** Escape covered under the ***. According to our records, both of those authorizations were issued on ****************** behalf to *************** during the month of July 2022; each under the terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions of the *** which is also referenced above.
Our preliminary research (and the image ****************** included with his complaint) indicates that the phone/text correspondence he received was merely a courtesy follow-up related to one or both of those claims, sent to the contact point he had previously provided with his *** application, to gauge his satisfaction and/or to solicit valued feedback. We understand ****************** has since elected to opt out of ***-related correspondence such as this, and our office is committed to honoring that request hereafter, of course.
We remain grateful for the privilege of being ****************** *** Administrator, and we look forward to future opportunities to provide coverage for eligible repairs during the balance of the ***s active term. Our records indicate the *** will remain in full force and effect until September 10, 2025,or a total vehicle odometer reading of ******* miles, whichever first occurs. As always if ****************** has any additional questions or concerns, he is welcome to contact our office directly by telephone at **************.
Sincerely,
Claims Department
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCO
BBB Business Profiles may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.
BBB Business Profiles are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. BBB asks third parties who publish complaints, reviews and/or responses on this website to affirm that the information provided is accurate. However, BBB does not verify the accuracy of information provided by third parties, and does not guarantee the accuracy of any information in Business Profiles.
When considering complaint information, please take into account the company's size and volume of transactions, and understand that the nature of complaints and a firm's responses to them are often more important than the number of complaints.
BBB Business Profiles generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Profiles are subject to change at any time. If you choose to do business with this business, please let the business know that you contacted BBB for a BBB Business Profile.
As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business. Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation. BBB charges a fee for BBB Accreditation. This fee supports BBB's efforts to fulfill its mission of advancing marketplace trust.