anyone used warranty wise?
Discussion
Hey guys,
Any used http://www.warrantywise.co.uk/ ?
Their warranty cover looks reasonable. Thoughts?
Cheers,
Faiz
Any used http://www.warrantywise.co.uk/ ?
Their warranty cover looks reasonable. Thoughts?
Cheers,
Faiz
looks reasonable enough but it comes down to the same old question, will they try duck and dive out of a claim
someone on 911uk had his claim for an engine fault rejected because the cambelt (on a 996) fault wasn't covered,don't know which warranty comapny though..
think the engineer whom looked at it though will have to eat humble pie...
someone on 911uk had his claim for an engine fault rejected because the cambelt (on a 996) fault wasn't covered,don't know which warranty comapny though..
think the engineer whom looked at it though will have to eat humble pie...
hartech said:
Do they exclude "wear and tear"? for that price we service your car as well and have almost no exclusions.
Baz
You can chose whether of not to add "wear & tear" works out a few quid more per month. It looks quite flexible so you can customize to your needs/preferences e.g. add a (small) excess to reduce the premium.Baz
Edited by garyjones1962 on Saturday 25th October 12:20
When I bought my 2002 Boxster almost 3 years ago one of the conditions of sale was that it came with a 12 month warranty. I also stated (after researching on this forum) that the warranty must include for the rubber seal that causes the RMS oil leak.
A 12 month Warrantwise Gold policy (the best they did) was what I ended up with. The policy said it covered ALL seals & gaskets.
Sure enough the car developed an RMS leak so I tried to claim on the policy.
To cut a long (over 12 months) story short they point blank refused to pay out, saying due to the age & mileage (32k) of the car the leak was due to wear & tear.
I argued that they could say that about any seal at any time so why include it in the policy.
I then complained to the Lloyds compaint department who asked if I would settle for a 50% payout which I reluctantly agreed to.
However when they suggested this to Warrantywise, again they refused to pay a penny.
I got the distinct impression the guy at Lloyds thought the policy was crap when he said his job was not to judge how good the policy was, but if it covered the fault, or not.
I ended up getting nowt with a policy that said it covered all seals & gaskets.
This is just my experience, but IMHO I wouldn't touch them with a very long bargepole.
A 12 month Warrantwise Gold policy (the best they did) was what I ended up with. The policy said it covered ALL seals & gaskets.
Sure enough the car developed an RMS leak so I tried to claim on the policy.
To cut a long (over 12 months) story short they point blank refused to pay out, saying due to the age & mileage (32k) of the car the leak was due to wear & tear.
I argued that they could say that about any seal at any time so why include it in the policy.
I then complained to the Lloyds compaint department who asked if I would settle for a 50% payout which I reluctantly agreed to.
However when they suggested this to Warrantywise, again they refused to pay a penny.
I got the distinct impression the guy at Lloyds thought the policy was crap when he said his job was not to judge how good the policy was, but if it covered the fault, or not.
I ended up getting nowt with a policy that said it covered all seals & gaskets.
This is just my experience, but IMHO I wouldn't touch them with a very long bargepole.
rem said:
When I bought my 2002 Boxster almost 3 years ago one of the conditions of sale was that it came with a 12 month warranty. I also stated (after researching on this forum) that the warranty must include for the rubber seal that causes the RMS oil leak.
A 12 month Warrantwise Gold policy (the best they did) was what I ended up with. The policy said it covered ALL seals & gaskets.
Sure enough the car developed an RMS leak so I tried to claim on the policy.
To cut a long (over 12 months) story short they point blank refused to pay out, saying due to the age & mileage (32k) of the car the leak was due to wear & tear.
I argued that they could say that about any seal at any time so why include it in the policy.
I then complained to the Lloyds compaint department who asked if I would settle for a 50% payout which I reluctantly agreed to.
However when they suggested this to Warrantywise, again they refused to pay a penny.
I got the distinct impression the guy at Lloyds thought the policy was crap when he said his job was not to judge how good the policy was, but if it covered the fault, or not.
I ended up getting nowt with a policy that said it covered all seals & gaskets.
This is just my experience, but IMHO I wouldn't touch them with a very long bargepole.
I had totally the opposite experience with Warrantydirect who paid for various rubber components on my CLK320 and Passat. They wont cover 996s but I think still offer warranties on Boxtsters. I would reommend them very highly.A 12 month Warrantwise Gold policy (the best they did) was what I ended up with. The policy said it covered ALL seals & gaskets.
Sure enough the car developed an RMS leak so I tried to claim on the policy.
To cut a long (over 12 months) story short they point blank refused to pay out, saying due to the age & mileage (32k) of the car the leak was due to wear & tear.
I argued that they could say that about any seal at any time so why include it in the policy.
I then complained to the Lloyds compaint department who asked if I would settle for a 50% payout which I reluctantly agreed to.
However when they suggested this to Warrantywise, again they refused to pay a penny.
I got the distinct impression the guy at Lloyds thought the policy was crap when he said his job was not to judge how good the policy was, but if it covered the fault, or not.
I ended up getting nowt with a policy that said it covered all seals & gaskets.
This is just my experience, but IMHO I wouldn't touch them with a very long bargepole.
I don't really want to enter into a comparative argument with anyone about the warranties other people offer as ours is fundamentally so different in concept relying as it does on our good quality of service to minimise the likelyhood of a claim between services anyway - however I did enter their site for a quotation this weekend and found that when I tailored it to be as close as possible to our own cover (similar labour rate, cover to include wear and tear etc) - it cost considerably more than the early figures suggested and as much as our 12K Lifetime Maintenance Plan costs that also include all the servicing completely FOC - that you still have to pay for on top with this scheme.
I noticed also that one of the exclusions was that the component in question must have failed. We have had problems in the past with customers claims on this very subject when the provider refused to pay for a "noisy" bearing etc until it has actually broken up. We argued that this was stupid because it would cost more but it seems they hope that the customer hears the problemn start and takes it somewhere before it is catastrophic and then they wriggle out of the claim because it has not broken by which time the customer has paid to have it stripped and inspected and therefore it becomes cheaper to fix it at their cost than pay to have it put together and drive around until it breaks up (not forgetting the potential damger to life and limb issue). Although you may have included "wear and tear" it would be interesting to see how they view (for example) brakes that still work but need replacing but have not yet broken up (for example).
It also must be remembered that although we do charge fairly for parts - many repairs have no parts (or minimal cost parts) and most of the cost these days is labour.
At the end of the day cover that reduces the profit of the policy provider - if he pays up - is always going to be hard work to receive whereas ours works differently - if we don't fix things as early as possible we simply pick up the bill for a more expensive repair later and if we do not keep the customer happy we lose future business (as they have not paid annually in advance but can stop monthly payments anytime they like) and we lose the future servivng business as well - so we have a vested interest in fulfilling our obligations as soon as possible - which no other scheme (except perhaps those copied from us) provide.
Baz
I noticed also that one of the exclusions was that the component in question must have failed. We have had problems in the past with customers claims on this very subject when the provider refused to pay for a "noisy" bearing etc until it has actually broken up. We argued that this was stupid because it would cost more but it seems they hope that the customer hears the problemn start and takes it somewhere before it is catastrophic and then they wriggle out of the claim because it has not broken by which time the customer has paid to have it stripped and inspected and therefore it becomes cheaper to fix it at their cost than pay to have it put together and drive around until it breaks up (not forgetting the potential damger to life and limb issue). Although you may have included "wear and tear" it would be interesting to see how they view (for example) brakes that still work but need replacing but have not yet broken up (for example).
It also must be remembered that although we do charge fairly for parts - many repairs have no parts (or minimal cost parts) and most of the cost these days is labour.
At the end of the day cover that reduces the profit of the policy provider - if he pays up - is always going to be hard work to receive whereas ours works differently - if we don't fix things as early as possible we simply pick up the bill for a more expensive repair later and if we do not keep the customer happy we lose future business (as they have not paid annually in advance but can stop monthly payments anytime they like) and we lose the future servivng business as well - so we have a vested interest in fulfilling our obligations as soon as possible - which no other scheme (except perhaps those copied from us) provide.
Baz
I'll give my on the fence comments on this based on taking out a warranty with Warranty Works and Warrnty Wise.
WASTE OF MONEY.
Excuses included:
"we think it is a pre-exisitng condition". Which of course nobody can prove, since they didnt inspect the car at policy start.
"it isnt a total failure" with ref to an intermittent fault. This of course describes most electrical faults...
Personally I'd only bother with a manufacturer backed warranty, or the service inclusive plans by people like Hartech.
Just my 2p.
WASTE OF MONEY.
Excuses included:
"we think it is a pre-exisitng condition". Which of course nobody can prove, since they didnt inspect the car at policy start.
"it isnt a total failure" with ref to an intermittent fault. This of course describes most electrical faults...
Personally I'd only bother with a manufacturer backed warranty, or the service inclusive plans by people like Hartech.
Just my 2p.
equinox_uk said:
Hey guys,
Any used http://www.warrantywise.co.uk/ ?
Their warranty cover looks reasonable. Thoughts?
Cheers,
Faiz
yepAny used http://www.warrantywise.co.uk/ ?
Their warranty cover looks reasonable. Thoughts?
Cheers,
Faiz
i found my car wouldn't start 40 days in to the cover so i put it in to the main dealer for repair. they advised me it was the wiring loom that connects the key fob receiver to the in car computer, and that it had failed due to normal ware and tear.
warranty wise refused the claim saying the vehicle has been on risk for 41 days and the condition would have been developing prior to the policy inspection. (they eventually sent an inspector around, after messing the garage around with timings)
I have no idea what this means, other than they are not going to pay.
as i under stood it they had claimed to cover ware and tear on all the not normally serviced parts.
can anyone help?
garyjones1962 said:
hartech said:
It also must be remembered that although we do charge fairly for parts - many repairs have no parts and most of the cost these days is labour.
...and it's worth remembering that the Porsche warranty does NOT cover these part-less/labour only fixes!
There are a lot of neg comments about warranty wise and I dont know why.
I can only comment on my experience and say they have been on the whole very good.
I had one problem when they left me paying £500 of a £1500 bill, but that was the fault of the OPC not diagnosing the correct fault then expecting warranty wise to pick up the tab.
Its true they wont cover belts,consumables and any form of corrosion. So if your Rads have corroded they wont pay, if they split due to a fault they will. But they still dont cover the anti-freeze.
They advertise by saying they dont list exclusions because there isn't any.Bold statement, but so far I have had my claims honored.
Last one was an alternator £750 at OPC only 2 weeks after renewal.I have broken even in the last 3 years of having a WW warranty. Ironically had I not had any warranty I would have had £3000 in savings to put the faults right. WW have paid just over that since I have been with them.
Its the Big things, Tip Box, Engine etc that I just could not replace easily.
I have never had a problem getting hold of them on the phone either. Payment has taken about 4 weeks but so what it took 4 weeks...
Some items:
PCM repair (not replace)
Door Lock & Central locking system & micro switches N/S door.
Gear box selector levers under car
Gear lever selector switch pack ( console) (had to put £500 of my own towards repair).
New Alternator
Total comes to about £4000 - the £500 I have paid means I am still on the plus side.
Frank
I can only comment on my experience and say they have been on the whole very good.
I had one problem when they left me paying £500 of a £1500 bill, but that was the fault of the OPC not diagnosing the correct fault then expecting warranty wise to pick up the tab.
Its true they wont cover belts,consumables and any form of corrosion. So if your Rads have corroded they wont pay, if they split due to a fault they will. But they still dont cover the anti-freeze.
They advertise by saying they dont list exclusions because there isn't any.Bold statement, but so far I have had my claims honored.
Last one was an alternator £750 at OPC only 2 weeks after renewal.I have broken even in the last 3 years of having a WW warranty. Ironically had I not had any warranty I would have had £3000 in savings to put the faults right. WW have paid just over that since I have been with them.
Its the Big things, Tip Box, Engine etc that I just could not replace easily.
I have never had a problem getting hold of them on the phone either. Payment has taken about 4 weeks but so what it took 4 weeks...
Some items:
PCM repair (not replace)
Door Lock & Central locking system & micro switches N/S door.
Gear box selector levers under car
Gear lever selector switch pack ( console) (had to put £500 of my own towards repair).
New Alternator
Total comes to about £4000 - the £500 I have paid means I am still on the plus side.
Frank
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff