Complaints

The 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:02/10/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  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.

  A few years back, ******** submitted claims for an oil leak. My warranty company name was Red Shield now ******* Global Protection Services****** And Central Administrative Services Corporation of Florida, ******* Shield denied the claim over and over again. Saying it was a seepage not a leak and ************* has to show a drip. ************* of Tamp repeatedly sent pictures and videos over and over. Claim still denied. Denied, denied. I spoke to managers, Supervisor, at Red Shield and ******* as late as last week 2025. I appreciate my warranty company but they have cause this problem I now have. I spoke to management, at least 75+ plus times over the years about repairing the leak. I have phone records to show the many calls to them over and over. They consistently explained they were not denying the claim just putting it on hold until they see a drip. Over and over they have still denied the claim. Every maintenance service I have at the dealership, the leak show in the report. ************* stop submitting it because it was the same denied claim. We were getting nowhere. They explained it would be covered if they see a drip. This has exhausted me, as I have kept my vehicle up with its required services. And any other uncovered services. Just last week ******* denied a claim saying it was because I didn't fix the oil leak. Now it's a leak when all these years its a seepage and not a serious issue. Not only that, but they waited until the warranty ended. And the new warranty took effect. I paid with taxes over $7,000 for this new warranty VANOF300066735. I also paid over $6,000 for the 1st warranty. About two months ago, MBenz of *** submitted the oil leak again, claim denied saying it was not covered under my new warranty and because it was never fixed, is the cause of the current issue. They have all the claims. Last week they said to resubmit the oil, I did, they still denied it. I am asking they approve both claims.

  Business Response

  Date: 02/21/2025

  In response to BBB complaint ***********
  There have been 12 claims written against 2 separate contracts. The contract is neither a warranty or insurance, but a mechanical service contract with terms and conditions that must be met. The first contract had Premier coverage, with 3 claims for engine oil leaks ranging from 5/23/2022 2/6/2023 and ****** miles ****** miles. All 3 claims written, had pictures of their leaks attached for review, and after adjudication, the leaks were classified as seeps only. Pursuant to Section VII(Seals and Gaskets) of the Contract, minor loss of fluid or seepage is considered normal and is not considered a breakdown and is not eligible for coverage.
  The second contract was a Deluxe, which is one level down from the Premier coverage on the first contract. Two claims with oil leak complaints were written on the new Deluxe contract ranging from 7/10/24 11/7/2025 and ******* miles ******* miles. There was ****** miles between the last oil leak concern on the first contract, and the first oil leak concern on the second contract. Unfortunately, the second contract does not provide coverage for the seal and gaskets. The 2 claims with oil leak concerns were denied pursuant to Section II(27) of the Contract.
  The most recent claim for engine noise was diagnosed with failing camshaft adjusters, which operate with oil pressure. The oil leak had been requested on the current contract for 7 months and over ****** miles, where the contract did not provide coverage, and the claimant had not corrected the leak,which could affect the operation of the camshaft adjusters. The claim was initially denied for continued operation of an impaired vehicle, pursuant to Section VI(3)(H) of the Contract. However, upon further review, it was determined that the oil leak was not cause for the failed adjusters and the repair to the actuators was approved on or about 2/12/2025. This claim is active and in process.
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 02/24/2025

   
  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,
  
  **** *********

  Customer Answer

  Date: 02/27/2025

  I am very happy the company has approved the major claim and I always appreciated Veritas (prior name Red Shield.)   I loved my warranty company which is why I saved for 2 years to afford the new contract of $7,000 I paid to ************* which includes the taxes for my extended warranty here.  I wanted to drive without worries.   The oil leak has been in question year after year as no oil leak.

  
  

  Inspite my accepting the company explanation and approval they did not approve the oil leak repair.  I would appreciatie and like to re-address this issue. 

  
  

  I understand it is not covered under the new contract as I didn't know it was not the identity service contract.   That's not their fault I know. 

  
  

  However,  the oil leak was a constant discussion under the old contract and denied continuously because Warranty claim it was not a leak but a seepage. 

  
  

  They told me it was not being denied but put on hold until it became a leak.  It is now a problem and if they don't pay it I am forced to pay.  I feel this should be fully paid considering it's been on hold thru the old service contract.  This is what I was told.

  
  

  As recent as 2024 ************* submitted again and management at ******* told me to make sure they resubmit the oil leak as if they would take care of it.  They denied it again ignore all the conversations to resubmitted.  

  
  

  This should have been taken care of during the old contract.   Now time has passed and it's a major issue, the cost is  $927.06.  At this point if they pay part, $700 I would pat the rest.

  
  

  I would appreciate if they would consider all the conversation per the old agreement.   They a

  have not obligated under the law, but they did tell me it was on hold under the old agreement. 

  
  

  I trusted them at their word.

  Business Response

  Date: 03/06/2025

  Please see attachment for response, as it exceeds the 2000 character limit for this field.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/06/2025

   
  Complaint: 22919324
  
  I am rejecting this response because:  I don't see a response to my second question.  I see the first one, I do not see the second one.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  **** *********

• Initial Complaint

  Date:10/23/2024

  Type:Product Issues
  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.

  Purchased an extended warranty on my late son's vehicle for $5,049. Upon selling his vehicle, I made three written requests to cancel the 60 month/100,000 mile warranty. The attempted letters were dated and mailed on 1/14/23, 5/23/23 and 8/18/23, with the third letter (notarized) sent via certified mail with return receipt. On 10/26/23, the cancellation was confirmed and I was told I would receive my prorated refund check within a few weeks. That never happened, so I began following up by phone on 1/16/24. After eight documented phone calls with no answer and messages left, I never received a call back, nor the refund I am due.

  Business Response

  Date: 10/31/2024

  This customer has been provided with her requested prorated refund per the terms of her contract in the amount of $2,472.32. The customer appears to have originally called into CarGuard of Florida to cancel the contract on or about April ******, whereby she was advised to contact the seller per the contract. Once the seller received the notarized letter of cancellation, the seller cancelled the contract on September 11, 2023. Unfortunately, and unbeknownst to CarGuard of Florida, the seller did not act in a timely manner to issue the refund. As soon as this complaint was received, the process to refund the contract was started immediately. As of today, the check is waiting to be delivered once the customer either picks it up from the **** or reschedules the delivery. At this time, this matter should be considered resolved as the refund has been issued per the customers request.  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/31/2024

   
  Complaint: 22460589
  
  I am rejecting this response because: Company stated that my first attempt to cancel the contract was not done properly, however I followed the contract's instructions to send it to the contract "administrator" who is shown on the attached file as "...dba CarGuard of Florida".  Company also states that they have issued a prorated refund based on the date they received my "proper" cancellation of 9/11/23.  Please see attached files showing that they received AND signed for cancellation letters from me on both 5/31/23 and 8/31/23.  I have shown proof of my diligence by making multiple attempts to contact them for cancellation, both via ignored phone calls and voice mails as well as proven written requests that were also mishandled.  In good business and in good faith, I am requesting what is fairly due to me, which is a prorated refund of 46.5 of the 60 months term.  This equates to $3,912.98 due to me. 

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** ********

  Business Response

  Date: 11/08/2024

  Tell us why here...After reviewing Ms. ********* reply to ********* initial response it has been determined that a mistake had been made in calculating the prorated refund. To date, Ms. ******** has received $2,472.32 in a prorated refund. Unfortunately, the refund was short $229.76. The initial calculation for the refund was based on newer contract language requiring a notarized cancellation letter to be sent in to start the cancellation process. However,after review, Ms. ********* contract did not include that language and the initial cancellation date of September 11, 2023 was used in error. Based on the correct contract language, the cancellation date should have been May 31, 2023,when the first cancellation letter was received by the seller. Using the correct cancellation date would result in a prorated refund of $2,702.08. With a cancellation date of May 31, 2023, and an expiration date of January 8, 2027,the cancellation factor would result in *****% of the contract being unused.The breakdown for the prorated refund would then be as follows: $3,855.00 for the price paid the service contract x *****% cancellation factor - $50 cancellation fee = $2,702.08. However, Ms. ******** is claiming she is owed $3,912.98 for the prorated refund, but that would be impossible given that the price paid for the service contract was $3,855.00. Evidence of this payment has been emailed to Ms. ******** separately. Once Ms. ******** receives the final $229.76, she will have received the full prorated refund of $2,702.08. This matter should be considered resolved once received. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/19/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  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.

  ************************* CAR EXTENDED WARRANTY HAS BEEN GIVING A HARD TIME TO PAY FOR OUR CAR REPAIRMENT AND THEY SAY THEY NEED MORE EVIDENCE OF THE ISSUE, DEALERSHIP HAS PROVIDED WITH SUFFICIENT PROOFS OF THE MATTER IN QUESTION.

  Business Response

  Date: 04/01/2024

  In response to the BBB complaint ID: ********
  On or about 4 March 2024, the Claimant drove their Vehicle to their chosen Repair Facility for an issue with the air suspension, dropping the vehicle level down. The Repair Facility found the suspension air valve block leaking air internally and stated an internal failure with the suspension air compressor. The claim was initiated 5 March 2024 requesting to replace the valve block and the suspension compressor. Proof of failure (POF) codes were requested and attached to the claim. The Airmatic,air suspension system has one (1) stored code present and no active current codes available. With this information, the determination was made to deny/cancel for no active failure. The Repair Facility was contacted on 6 March 2024, and advised of the determination.
  On 11 March 2024 the Repair Facility called to provide additional POF information for review. On 13 March 2024, the Repair Facility called in to check on the status of the claim. On the call, a request was made for a POF video showing the suspension dropping.  The Repair Facility provided video was received,reviewed, and attached to the claim on 18 March 2024. The next day, the Repair Facility was contacted and given authorization for the suspension valve block only, as the compressor was currently functioning normally. Additionally advised to re-evaluate the suspension air compressor, after the valve block repair.
  On 21 March 2024, the Repair Facility called to advise the air compressor has an internal leak that was found after replacement of the valve block. Additional POF documentation was submitted for review, showing no external leaks after the valve block replacement. The Repair Facility was contacted on 27 March 2024 and given additional approval for the air compressor replacement.  
  The Claimants complaint was filed on 20 March 2024, while the claim was still in process. Once failure for the requested repairs was verified, the claim was ultimately approved with adjudicated totals, as of 27 March 2024.  This claim has been satisfied and is awaiting invoice submission to release payment.  
  
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:01/15/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  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.

  To whom it may concern,I am writing to address the denial of my claim (#******) for front differential failure coverage. Despite being informed that the denial is based on the failure predating the contract coverage period, I possess compelling evidence contradicting this assertion.Key Timeline of Events:- Vehicle purchased on 9/17/2023 from ************************* with ****** miles.- UCI inspection on 8/22/2023 by Parks ******* with ****** miles revealed no concerns related to differential issues.- Vehicle refinanced on 12/21/2023 with ****** miles, and Veritas *** issued simultaneously with coverage starting at the same mileage.- Veritas *** specifies a waiting period of 0 DAYS and 0 MILES from the purchase date.- Oil change on 12/23/2023 at Parks ******* with ****** miles; multipoint inspection documented no differential issues.- CV axle failure addressed on 12/28/2023 at **************** initially denied but later approved for coverage after verification.- Authorized CV axle repair revealed additional front differential issues, submitted a request for coverage.- Veritas denied coverage, citing pre-existing front differential failure.- Veritas representative claimed the failure could not have occurred in 13 days, without providing evidence.I dispute this denial based on the following:- Parks ******* inspection on 12/23/2023 with ****** miles confirmed the front differential's good condition.- Veritas failed to provide evidence of the failure predating the coverage period.- Multipoint inspection document is irrefutable proof that the failure occurred within the *** coverage period.I request a thorough review of the evidence attached and reconsideration of the denial. Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated.Respectfully,*******************

  Business Response

  Date: 01/25/2024

  In response to Complaint ID: ******** for Contract VGOF900047357.
  Thank you for reaching out to us with your concern. On 28 December 2023, you drove your vehicle to your chosen repair facility for a front-end noise on acceleration and deceleration. The repair facility called into Veritas on 30 December 2023, recommending replacing the right front axle assembly, due to a torn axle boot. With your vehicle 8 days and 345 miles into the contract, the axle was denied as the failure is inconsistent with the time and mileage into the ********* ********** ultimately made the decision to approve the axle, not having sufficient evidence the failure was pre-existing. On 2 January **** the repair facility was contacted and give approval with the adjudicated totals.
  The repair facility called back into Veritas on 4 January **** to add the front differential assembly to the claim for noise on acceleration. A second claim was opened at this time. A third-party inspection was performed on 8 January **** for verification of the failure. After review of the inspection pictures, oil and road grime around and under the front differential were seen and documented. This indicated a long-term oil leak which would not have accumulated the buildup within 8 days. Since the differential failure is internal bearing related, the determination to deny for a pre-existing condition was made. On 10 November ****, the repair facility was contacted with the claim determination to deny.
  On 24 January ****, a maintenance record was submitted for review regarding an oil leak repair on 22 August 2023. The leak from the oil pan area would be a plausible explanation of the oil and road grime accumulation, as it is above the front differential. With this new information presented, the determination was reversed, and the front differential repair was approved. The repair facility was contacted and given authorization for the differential replacement. The requested nuts and bolts will remain denied, as hardware is listed as excluded in your Contract Section V(18). At this time,the complaint and claims have been satisfied and are currently awaiting the invoice to release payment.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/19/2023

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  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 purchased a 2013 ******** **** GL-450 from a Dealer in Hollywood Florida on 11/13/2021 where I was offered an extended warranty in which I accepted given the make of the vehicle. I purchased the Deluxe Full Term for $3,409 with a red of $200 that expires either at ******* miles or 11/14/2023. I presented the first issue 7/14/2022 where the brakes were bad but because I had a mechanic I took it there and had it done because the safety of my children was first. The cost was over $2,000, I remembered I had purchased this warranty and went through the proper channels of trying to get reimbursed in which I was turned down despite the photos went with the damaged parts. First of all the only ones that can speak to the adjusters is the shop never the customer (shady already) after numerous attempts all failed and I had to eat that cost. Around March 2023 I brought the vehicle in due to some noise underneath and the check engine light coming on and off and a delay in startup to one of there mechanics that are certified and whom they approve (******* Auto in ***) it was diagnosed with a high pressure sensor issue etc due to the cost an adjuster whom Veritas chooses has to come out within 2-3 days (meanwhile I'm out of a vehicle) per ******* the adjuster was there for 15 minutes and "because the check engine light was not active that claim was denied" I called and again no one would speak to me. Meanwhile my car again has delays in start up and as days go by it won't even start and I have to wait. ******* advised ******* that the light had to be actively on, so I drove it for days (meanwhile my mileage keeps going up and time passes by-on purpose) when it finally came on I rushed to ******* they scanned it and sent all pertinent evidence over. A few days later another denial because they need to check the pressure as well and it needs to show an active at the very moment issue with the pressure despite the check engine light on and the history of the same. See attachement

  Business Response

  Date: 05/16/2023

  In response to complaint ID: ******** for contract number VGOF300077318.
  Thank you for reaching out to us with your concern. On 3/3/2023,you drove your 2013 ******** **** GL450 to your chosen repair facility ************************ for multiple noise concerns and a check engine light. On 3/7/2023,the repair facility called the claim into Vertias recommending replacing a left motor mount and right front axle for the noise issues and the high-pressure fuel pump for the check engine light. The requested repairs were at a cost of $5513.34.
  An inspection was requested and received on 3/8/2023. The inspection verifies the engine mount has collapsed and separated causing severe vibration in the vehicle. The axle has a split boot which allowed the axle to lose its grease.The fuel pump shows past codes only and normal operation at the time of the inspection.
  The motor mount was approved on your claim. The axle was denied due to the axle boot being the failure and not listed, in your chosen contract, for coverage. The high-pressure fuel pump was cancelled for no failure, with the only diagnostic shown to be past codes for low fuel pressure.The inspector noted normal operation with over ****psi in the fuel rail demonstrated during the inspection. Approval was given to the repair facility on 3/10/2023 for the motor mount at a cost of $980.10.
  On 4/7/2023, the repair facility called in wanting to send proof of failure for the fuel pump we had cancelled. They are now requesting 2 fuel pumps and a fuel pressure sensor without providing any additional diagnostic other than past codes. Running the vehicle low on fuel and/or an issue with the low-pressure fuel pump will cause this issue as well.
  On 5/1/2023, the repair facility called with the addition of an air conditioning concern. The ******** Valve (a/c service port) was leaking.This item is hardware and will not have coverage on your contract due to hardware being listed in the exclusions section of your contract.
  This claim has been adjudicated correctly to the contract terms and conditions as listed below:
  SECTION I. DEFINITIONS
  10. Failure means the failure of a covered part under normal service. A covered part has failed when it can no longer perform the function for which it was designed solely due to its condition, and not due to the action or inaction of any non covered parts. In addition, a Failure will be deemed to have occurred when a covered part has worn beyond the manufacturers tolerances allowed for the particular Vehicle at the mileage when the problem occurs.
  SECTION V. EXCLUSIONS WHAT IS NOT COVERED
  3. For damage to a covered part caused by the Failure of a part that is not listed as covered under this Agreement.
  18. For any of the following parts: hoses, brake pads, brake linings/shoes, wiper blades, belts, thermostat housing, shock absorbers (not excluded under PREMIER and DELUXE Coverage), carburetor, air springs and air struts, headlight assemblies, taillamp assemblies, blind spot sensors,heated steering wheels, coolant reservoir tanks, fuse boxes (including *** Modules and ********************** Modules), Oxygen (O2) sensors, vacuum pumps,battery and battery cable/harness, standard transmission clutch assembly,friction clutch disc and pressure plate, distributor cap and rotor, safety restraint systems (including air bags), glass, lenses, sealed beams, light bulbs, LED lighting, fuses, circuit breakers, cellular phones, personal computers, pre-heated car systems, game systems, sun shades, radar detection devices, brake rotors and drums, gas cap/filler neck, weather strips, trim,moldings, bright metal chrome, upholstery and carpet, paint, outside ornamentation,bumpers, body sheet metal and panels, frame and structural body parts, vinyl and convertible tops, any convertible top assemblies, door handles, lift gate handles, tailgate handles, door bushings/bearings, hardware or linkage,tires, tire pressure sensors, wheel/rims, programming, reprogramming, or updating or maintaining a component that has not mechanically failed. Any equipment not installed by the manufacturer. External nuts, bolts, and fasteners are not covered unless they need to be replaced in connection with a Covered Repair. Engine block and cylinder heads are not covered if damage is caused by external overheating, freezing, or warping. Any other part not listed in SECTION IV. COVERAGE of this Contract.
  22. For any repair or replacement of any Covered Part if a Breakdown has not occurred or if the wear on that part has not exceeded the field tolerances allowed by the manufacturer under normal operating conditions.
  23. Any repair that has been misdiagnosed by the Repair Facility and/or any cause of Failure that cannot be verified as accurate or is found to be inaccurate.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:10/31/2022

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  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 purchased a Veritas Global Protection (VGOF300086301) on May 24, 2022. I activated the coverage 9/1/2022 for a engine repair (3 heads seized up). The initial "approval" took 4 weeks even with several calls to get a status updated, only to be told it had been escalated,. Then upon repair work another claim was filed for a catalytic converter. All in all we have been without this car for 2 months. That's a huge impact on anyone's life. I have made several calls asking to be escalated to a manager/supervisor with no assistance offered. They would send a note to the adjuster, never heard from this person. Very frustrating to deal with them - no way to get my grievances heard, assume they don't care, they have my money, why should they want to spend it.

  Business Response

  Date: 04/05/2024

  In response to BBB complaint ID: ******** filed on 10/31/2022.
  On or about 8/25/2022, the Vehicle was taken to the Repair Facility for a check engine light and a lack of power. The Repair Facility initiated a claim on 9/6/2022 recommending an engine replacement due to an internal failure with the valves. With a third-party inspection report stating only one (1)cylinder head is failing. The Repair Facility feels the other side has not failed but is recommending an engine to play it safe, with the thinking the other side could follow. Additional diagnostics were requested to provide data regarding the second (2nd) cylinder head.
  After multiple levels of review due to the price point of the claim, the authorization was provided for one (1) cylinder head only on 9/23/2022.The Repair Facility called in to add additional parts to the claim on 9/26/2022,instead opening a new claim to request the additional parts. All additional parts were approved on 10/31/2022, including non-covered oxygen sensors, which were goodwilled as a courtesy. The catalytic converter is a listed excluded item pursuant to V(18) and (25) of the Contract.
  The initial repair was approved in less than 3 weeks, with the Claimants chosen Repair Facility providing additional parts to the Claim multiple times, where the Claim requires a re-adjudication after each due to the claim totals. The Repair Facility provided invoice for $9366.48 was received on 11/22/2022 and payment sent. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:10/04/2022

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  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 has been an ongoing issue with the warranty company. The manufacturer states that it is unsafe and must be replaced. You can visually see the bushings leaking. I sent those pictures to the repair shop for confirmation also. They also happen to be the number one service shop in North ******* for Audi. I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing.The reality of the situation is that I am very near the end of my warranty and the company will not honor it. This in my mind is pure fraud. At the very least it's a dishonest and deceitful business practices. Every time my car has been in the shop it is under warranty. I purchased the absolute highest possible warranty they had that covered everything. Continuing to refuse the manufactures recommendation on safety and replacement is putting me and my family in danger. This must be addressed.we filed a previous complaint and were jerked around till we had to drive our car back and forth to the dealer until it was OUT OF WARRANTY! That is FRAUD!!!! They MADE US go over on miles and only fixed on of the many suspension issues. This dates back past 8/31/2022 whre we have records of suspension request.

  Business Response

  Date: 04/05/2024

  In response to BBB complaint ID: ******** filed on 10/3/2022.
  This is a Mechanical Service Contract and not a Warranty. As such, there are terms and conditions that must be followed. Section I of the Contract defines failure as follows, A covered part has failed when it can no longer perform the function for which it was designed solely because of its condition and not because of the action or inaction of any noncovered parts. The Contract requires verification of failure (VOF) utilizing pictures and/or video as proof of failure (POF). Seven (7) claims were filed against the Contract,with five (5) of them having authorizations for various repairs, including suspension related components.
  The last claim had approvals that carried over from the previous claim, due to the Claimant removing the vehicle prior to authorization. The last claim opened on 6/28/2022 at a mileage of ****** is 335 miles from the expiration mileage of ******. Approvals of over $6,000 have been paid out for repairs over the life of the Contract.