Scotsure Warranty

[Husky]

I know alot of you will already know this about paid for warranties but...

Under no circumstances use scotsure warranty. I have one and im off to the toilet to wipe my arse with the most expensive bog roll i've ever bought.

Ignoring if they pay or not pay and the whole normal warranty argument. The service i received was utterly appalling, rude, obnoxious, aggressive, ignorant.

 

eg: Synchromesh in 5th and 6th gone

 

Me: My 5th and 6th gears are very very difficult to get into and it appears to be a synchromesh problem.

Warranty: We dont cover wear and tear

Me: Its not normal wear and tear, its gone at low miles in an infrequently used gear set.

Warranty: This is not a maintenance warranty it is a sudden fault warranty

Me: It suddenly stopped letting me into gear

Warranty: Your an engineer, you should know these things wear out over time

Me: your a warranty service you should know thats an odd gear to be going and very early in the cars life to be maintenence, its a fault in the vehicle

Warranty: Nissan should be fixing it then

Me: we started the conversation by me giving you the number plate which is 04, i might be wrong but 10 minus 4 is 6 years in my book and nissan cover to 3 which is why i have your warranty

Warranty: is the car stationary at the moment then?

Me: no i need it to get to and from work

Warranty: Well how are you driving it if the gearbox is gone

Me: it is a 6 speed box and 5th and 6th have gone leaving me 1st through 4th

Warranty: Well thats enough you can drive using them

Me: its a car with a 6 speed box and your telling me that i should forever more drive around on 4 gears? so when the other 4 go your professional recommendation is to push the car?

 

etc etc etc, we did this for each part of the car that was wrong, CV joints had to explode like dynamite, my window had to shatter and the motor to go up in flames, my arb drop links had to snap and fly off.

 

you get the idea, i got pretty angry at this point and began shouting in the middle of a car park on the phone. Im beyond angry now and they told me that CS phoned them for the first time today even though they have been going on since november with him about this.

 

They dont have a website btw, so if anyone has the ability to set one up using http://www.scotsurewarranty.com or such like be my guest. And i dont know how google looks things up but if this was at the top i'd be a happy man. i was robbed of 300 pounds.

 

rant over

 

**** ****ers **** munching **** faced ****s

[ZMANALEX]

If the Scotsure warranty that you refer to is the Insurance warranty provided by the SMTA then I would not be to hasty in flushing it down the loo.

 

There warranties are one of the best that money can buy and there customer service is totally beyond reproach.

 

No matter what insurance warranty that you have, wear and tear will not be covered as it is a mechanical failure policy, however if the gearbox was stripped down and a part was found to be broken then your claim should be successful.

 

Heated debates will never work in your favour in a situation like this.

 

Alex.

[Husky]

If the Scotsure warranty that you refer to is the Insurance warranty provided by the SMTA then I would not be to hasty in flushing it down the loo.

 

There warranties are one of the best that money can buy and there customer service is totally beyond reproach.

 

No matter what insurance warranty that you have, wear and tear will not be covered as it is a mechanical failure policy, however if the gearbox was stripped down and a part was found to be broken then your claim should be successful.

 

Heated debates will never work in your favour in a situation like this.

 

Alex.

 

cheers alex, im surprised as i started off for about 5 minutes being really polite as i always am on the phone and accepting all his snide comments and "witty" remarks. I was just letting them go but it was unreal, he was being a cheeky sod and treating me like dirt. Even from the way he said "how can i help you" he muttered it like i was inconveniencing him by phoning.

 

im not looking for my brakes to be replaced or my clutch so i don't think i'm being totally unreasonable here. How can a CV joint be wear and tear when it started clicking at low miles and its not an item i can service or use in a less wearing way

The gear box i already understood needed stripped and an independent inspection carried, so instead of asking me to do this and then phone them he tried to convince me that i should drive around with 4 gears only

 

Anyhow, i phoned them back, got a nice lady called sarah and she told me the procedure i need to go through which i thanked her for and went on my way. Whatever the first guys problem was hes got himself a complaint to management tomorrow about his conduct to their customers. Warranty issues aside it was disgraceful.

 

So... a CV joint, he said it has to explode all over the road for them to pay for it.. at 29k miles is it not an unexpected fault to be clicking loudly? same with the gear box

[MITZ@CougarStore]

Instead of having to start a new thread, I thought I would add to this one as I need to refer back to it.

 

The last conversation John and I shared was when he spoke to the Warranty Company, I said yesterday that I remember the conversation we shared as what John told me is dialogued above. After this time, 8 weeks have passed; John never contacted me, as from the above its clear that the Warranty Company would only step in if his car was destructed by the said parts, which is what I was told by John when he last spoke to me.

 

So in the 8 weeks when John hasn’t been in touch, he’s not informed me that another garage has been instructed to do the work, I’m only a phonecall away, or a 30 minute drive from West Midlands, after the above call you could have spoken to me and we would have discussed our options, instead after speaking to me you posted the above about the Warranty Company and that was that.

 

You’ve had the work done privately, even if you had asked me I would have made sure that I would have worked for almost nothing on your car and even sorted out the parts to you, at cost but you never gave me the chance nor opportunity, instead you chose not to talk to me and went ahead and instructed the work yourself.

[MITZ@CougarStore]

I know alot of you will already know this about paid for warranties but...

Under no circumstances use scotsure warranty. I have one and im off to the toilet to wipe my arse with the most expensive bog roll i've ever bought.

Ignoring if they pay or not pay and the whole normal warranty argument. The service i received was utterly appalling, rude, obnoxious, aggressive, ignorant.

 

eg: Synchromesh in 5th and 6th gone

 

Me: My 5th and 6th gears are very very difficult to get into and it appears to be a synchromesh problem.

Warranty: We dont cover wear and tear

Me: Its not normal wear and tear, its gone at low miles in an infrequently used gear set.

Warranty: This is not a maintenance warranty it is a sudden fault warranty

Me: It suddenly stopped letting me into gear

Warranty: Your an engineer, you should know these things wear out over time

Me: your a warranty service you should know thats an odd gear to be going and very early in the cars life to be maintenence, its a fault in the vehicle

Warranty: Nissan should be fixing it then

Me: we started the conversation by me giving you the number plate which is 04, i might be wrong but 10 minus 4 is 6 years in my book and nissan cover to 3 which is why i have your warranty

Warranty: is the car stationary at the moment then?

Me: no i need it to get to and from work

Warranty: Well how are you driving it if the gearbox is gone

Me: it is a 6 speed box and 5th and 6th have gone leaving me 1st through 4th

Warranty: Well thats enough you can drive using them

Me: its a car with a 6 speed box and your telling me that i should forever more drive around on 4 gears? so when the other 4 go your professional recommendation is to push the car?

 

etc etc etc, we did this for each part of the car that was wrong, CV joints had to explode like dynamite, my window had to shatter and the motor to go up in flames, my arb drop links had to snap and fly off.

 

you get the idea, i got pretty angry at this point and began shouting in the middle of a car park on the phone. Im beyond angry now and they told me that CS phoned them for the first time today even though they have been going on since november with him about this.

 

They dont have a website btw, so if anyone has the ability to set one up using http://www.scotsurewarranty.com or such like be my guest. And i dont know how google looks things up but if this was at the top i'd be a happy man. i was robbed of 300 pounds.

 

rant over

 

**** ****ers **** munching **** faced ****s

 

Instead of having to start a new thread, I thought I would add to this one as I need to refer back to it.

 

The last conversation John and I shared was when he spoke to the Warranty Company, I said yesterday that I remember the conversation we shared as what John told me is dialogued above. After this time, 8 weeks have passed; John never contacted me, as from the above its clear that the Warranty Company would only step in if his car was destructed by the said parts, which is what I was told by John when he last spoke to me.

 

So in the 8 weeks when John hasn’t been in touch, he’s not informed me that another garage has been instructed to do the work, I’m only a phonecall away, or a 30 minute drive from West Midlands, after the above call you could have spoken to me and we would have discussed our options, instead after speaking to me you posted the above about the Warranty Company and that was that.

 

You’ve had the work done privately, even if you had asked me I would have made sure that I would have worked for almost nothing on your car and even sorted out the parts to you, at cost but you never gave me the chance nor opportunity, instead you chose not to talk to me and went ahead and instructed the work yourself.

[andlid]

lads, can you discuss this offline and post an event thread that you both agree to instead of back and forth here? I'm following this pretty closely so I can make my own mind up and I believe that others are doing the same.

 

a

[Husky]

i think you will find the last conversation we actually had was; i phoned you directly after the warranty company ohne call above which is when you claimed to have a fax to prove you had been in contact with the warranty company all along, your words were; So i don't exist now do i!? im sure i have a fax somewhere from them i can dig out to prove it. As i have stated, this fax has still not materialised and the warranty companies legal records have yet to be proven wrong.

 

i quote myself from above:

Im beyond angry now and they told me that CS phoned them for the first time today even though they have been going on since november with him about this.

at that time i believed the warranty company were lying to me as i had trusted cougar store throughout, you can now see that i was wrong and should have believed the warranty company from the outset. They informed me that the information being provided from cougar store since November was in disagreement with their records.

 

 

As from the above its clear that the Warranty Company would only step in if his car was destructed by the said parts, which is what I was told by John when he last spoke to me.

this statement is false as stated by the warranty company records, their records clearly show that authority to remove the gearbox was given directly to cougar store over the phone. This authority was not passed from cougar store to myself leaving me unaware of the authority given, this turn of events lead the warranty company to refuse the claim based on neglect.

 

 

So in the 8 weeks when John hasn’t been in touch

you continue to bring this up; what did you believe was happening in that time? what actions were you taking to resolve the warranty claim? as the customer of your garage why was i having to do your work for you?

I chased for 4 months about this previously, phoning every time, this is the first business i have dealt with that believes the customer should always have to phone and never the business. Considering the communication was left at the stage of i will find the fax it seemed sensible you would call me to disprove the warranty company.

 

 

I will copy here other questions that have remained unanswered.

where is the mysterious fax that proves the garage did not lie for 4 months about phoning the warranty company?

why were so many other customers put before the warranty claim if not for the reason of making quick cash over larger pieces of work?

why did the garage say they had previous experience in dealing with warranty companies and then make an extremely fundamental mistake?

why was communication always the responsibility of me and not the garage?

 

 

 

I want answers to simple questions, i will ask them over and over until they are answered.

i am not trying to confuse this for people trying to follow, whether it is pm'd in private or not i would request hat all pm's be agreed to be made public at the end so it will all be shown anyway.

[Cragus]

I don't know either Mitz or John personally but as I said in the previous post (I know you disagree with me John) but the only winner is the warranty company. They don' have to pay out, while you are hugely out of pocket and the CS garage is having its name dragged through the mud.

 

I think from the various postings everybody has a rough understanding of what has happened which is fundamentally a severe breakdown in communication.

 

I DO think Mitz should have better contact with both you and the warranty company so can apportion an amount of fault in his direction for that. However, at the same time I think within an 8 week gap (if you hadn't heard from the garage in question), then reasonable action would be to phone and say whats going on? I don't think this should be confused with 'having to do their work.' In an ideal situation you shouldn't of had to wait this long or chase it up but as time went on you must of realised this was not an ideal situation.

 

My car is in getting bodywork carried out just now (more than originally planned) and the garage have said they will phone me when its ready. Will be a couple of weeks they said but even so I have still kept in contact to make sure things are going smoothly and to see what stage they are at. I am not trying to do their jobs, if anything they probably think I am a pain in the ass - but I'm trying to make sure things go right for me.

 

I do genuinely feel really bad for you Husky and have no doubt your blood is boiling over this but I don't think a public arguement is the way to resolve this.

[Chesterfield]

Given that Scotsure previously told you that the only two items of correspondence on your claim were in Novemer when you called regarding the warranty booklet, and in February when CS callthed them, it would seem strange that today they tell you CS called for the first time - even though two days ago CS wa made aware that you have resolved the matter privately.

 

Given the above discrepancies in Scotsures records, it would seem somewhat strange to then use their record as a basis for discounting what CS has told you.

 

I would agre wit the above that it appears there has been a great breakdown in communications here, but I think you blaming CS for the "loss" or out of pocket expenses of £3k+ when it was your decision to take the work private without first notifying CS is possibly unreasonable.

 

I am not supporting or negating either party here, but looking at the posts as is. I agree you should have an answer as to what was happening during the time you were not in contact with CS, however you state that authority was given in February, yet they also state that the first call from CS was made to Scotsure today - given that, can you 100% believe that they did provide that authority?

 

It seems strange to conclude the warranty company records are highly questionable, yet use those same records as a basis for complaint.

[rtbiscuit]

however you state that authority was given in February, yet they also state that the first call from CS was made to Scotsure today - given that, can you 100% believe that they did provide that authority?

 

It seems strange to conclude the warranty company records are highly questionable, yet use those same records as a basis for complaint.

 

think you miss read/understood the original post The day Husky rang the warranty company was the same day CS did, i beleive he only took the work else where once the warranty company had told him his claim was no longer legit.

 

and the reason it was no longer legit was due to the original garages lack of communication.

thats my understanding of it and from the written information.

 

but i'm sure all would be clarified

[andlid]

however you state that authority was given in February, yet they also state that the first call from CS was made to Scotsure today - given that, can you 100% believe that they did provide that authority?

 

It seems strange to conclude the warranty company records are highly questionable, yet use those same records as a basis for complaint.

 

think you miss read/understood the original post The day Husky rang the warranty company was the same day CS did, i beleive he only took the work else where once the warranty company had told him his claim was no longer legit.

 

and the reason it was no longer legit was due to the original garages lack of communication.

thats my understanding of it and from the written information.

 

but i'm sure all would be clarified

thats how I understand it too so far

[Chesterfield]

But in the first post of this thread its stated that Scotsure told John that CS first phoned today

 

I think Im just tired having been doing DIY all damned weekend and Im misreading stuff. Time for bed and then off to work for a ruddy rest

[andlid]

But in the first post of this thread its stated that Scotsure told John that CS first phoned today

 

I think Im just tired having been doing DIY all damned weekend and Im misreading stuff. Time for bed and then off to work for a ruddy rest

 

[Chesterfield]

Im taking progress photos every now and then, so I can blog the whole thing when I have a minute spare Wont take this further off topic though so I shall post up in the off topic when I get the pics off my camera.

[rtbiscuit]

But in the first post of this thread its stated that Scotsure told John that CS first phoned today

 

I think Im just tired having been doing DIY all damned weekend and Im misreading stuff. Time for bed and then off to work for a ruddy rest

 

think it might be a typing error, or the fact that he was typing as they spoke it, if that makes sense.

 

must admit its alot to take on board, but i'm fairly certain if the claim had been originally started by falcon then none of this would be an issue but thats only becuase they have a long record of dealing with warranty companies and know the language and the expected steps to be taken.

[Husky]

this thread was brought up fromt the past, hence "today" referring to a time in the past. not the actual today if that makes sense.

 

timeline of phone calls to warranty company:

 

1) november, i phoned requesting booklet

||

\/

2) this is the 4 month period of time i was told CS was in contact frequently with the warranty company

||

\/

3) end of feb, CS phoned scotsure 3pm

||

\/

4) same day at end of feb, I phoned CS 4pm to be told the communication marked here as 2 did not take place.

 

after this the claim was given to falcon to take charge of. it wasnt until later when falcon were dealing with the warranty company did it materialise that scotsure had already given authority to remove and inspect the gearbox to CS.

 

As stated in the original post regarding the problems, scotsures records are there for legal purposes, every phone call is recorded and everything is automatically date and time stamped to the second. They had nothing to gain at the time by telling me the garage i was using had been lying to me. Also as stated, CS assured me he had a fax from scotsure disproving their records, im happy to see this fax, confirm its exsitence is legitemate and then apologise for accusing his garage of lying to me for 4 months.

 

I fully understand its easy to get lost here guys as its alot of information to take in with various dates times and other rubbish thrown in to muddy the water and avoid answering the questions posed. I can only apologise and hope answers will come to light soon and it can be put to bed. I for one will be happy to see the back of it. These answers can be PM'd to me but i have to make it very clear that any communication via PM from the garage will be subject to possible quotation in the public domain.

[MITZ@CougarStore]

John, no fax was received from Scotsure, I said we sent them the communication, we have received nothing from them, I was the only person making calls to them, not them to me or vice versa. I still have your text message when I asked you to send me your postal address, as I said to you that they need to put your car to the address that it’s allocated to.

 

I even said to you that I sent them a letter through the post, thinking that the traditional method would be best, again, nothing from them, this was also hand written stating the issues with your car with your address, car and issues.

 

I have received no written nor verbal communication from them at all, the only person who was calling and writing was me, which is why when I last spoke to you, I told them that I’d ask you to also call them, which you did as to date, you hadn’t called them from beginning to end until I asked you to do so. When you yourself spoke to them, you heard how they spoke to you, as one of their customers, I remember you venting down the phone to me how you felt and I was also on your side as I thought what they had said to you was simply appalling.

 

They don’t even have a website, which is strange, as I would have emailed them and logged everything that I did at my end and this would have also shown that nothing from them was reciprocated.

 

If Scotsure had given us authority they should have sent us this in writing, so at least it was set in stone, this is what people usually do, as them claiming they had given us authority over the phone doesn’t stand as anything until they have it in writing, as that leaves you and I with no grounds to follow...

[Chris`I]

I think you both need to be requesting the dialogue, recordings and any other info from Scotsure on any conversations regarding yourselfs and the claim respectively. Due to Data protection and freedom of information act, they have to hand over any information (albeit for a nominal fee). This is the only way you will be able to work out what has happened, not only from this end but also at Scotsure.

 

Aside to that, when exaclty have Scotsure told either of you they gave CS formal authority to carry out work? I am led to beleive that CS has only made one phone call according to Scotsure's records, and this was prior to CS getting John to call them as they wouldnt warrant the work. There seems to be a big hole here, where Scotsure seem to be hinging everything on the fact that CS had authority to work when CS have no recollection of it or it in writing. I am supprised Scotsure have not told John the exact date/time when they gave authorisation - in my mind this would make things a lot clearer.

[Chesterfield]

I doubt any garage would carry out work on a vehicle without written confirmation of the manufacturer covering this under warranty, or in the case of extended warranties the Warranty company providing this written confirmation that authoristaion has been given.

 

On the reverse side of this how can Scotsure now deny your warranty claim based on your "abuse" of the vehicle after confirmation authorisation was given, which has not been proven.

 

The Warranty company are not willing to pay for over £3k worth of repairs, and their defense is that they already gave permission in a phone call which only their systems seem to have logged - how very convenient.

 

If Scotsure cannot provide proof either in writing or in recorded form that the authority was given, then I fail to see how they can reject your claim. Do they record all calls? If so this would certainly clear things up.

[ZMANALEX]

Talking from hands on experience, this is how a Scotsure warranty authorization works.

 

If done by telephone and if the claim is accepted at that time then a claims reference number is given to the garage over the telephone. Job gets done. Bill sent to warranty company, less any customer contribution.

 

If the claim is not initially accepted and a strip down is requested then no claim reference number will be given and the reference number will continue to be the original policy number.

 

The strip down will be at the expense of the owner if the claim is rejected.

 

If the claim is accepted after the warranty company engineer's inspection of the stripped down components then a a claims reference number is given. Job gets done. Bill sent to warranty company, less any customer contribution.

 

Quite simple and straight forward really.

 

Alex.

[Chris`I]

Good info Alex, thanks for posting

[Chesterfield]

Therefor if John was told the truth by Scotsure that they record all calls, there should be no issue in them proving that authority was given? That would clear things up I suppose?

 

Also if authority was given only to remove and inspect the gearbox, this does not constitute acceptance of the claim does it? Only the strip down, and the strip down would have been at the expense of John - going by his most recent discussions with Scotsure would they have approved the claim rather than the strip down. If not, then John would have been out of pocket for the strip down on top of what he already has been wouldnt he?

 

Im amazed that there is no written confirmation sent to a garage to authorise repair work

[Husky]

I am indeed out of pocket for the strip down ontop of the other charges, sorry i forgot to add that. cheers

[Chesterfield]

When did you do the strip down, and when was that authorised? If there was only one call from CS to Scotsure, they couldnt have authorised the strip down and the repair itself all in one could they?

 

I thought the strip down had to be done before they could authorise the repair?

 

I cant see how Scotsure records can only have one item of contact between CS and themselves listed, yet have given authority for the strip down and repair?

[Husky]

Falcon had to do the strip down no matter the outcome of the warranty claim to prove it was a legitimate claim and to continue the warranty from that date.