Boxterboy>>and virtually every time I'm in there, there is someone withdrawing cash to buy a car.
Why on earth would anybody take cash out of a bank to pay a car dealer. Switch cards??? And if buying on credit card, surely cheaper and easier to pay the 2.5% to the dealer?
|
And if buying on credit card, surely cheaper and easier to pay the 2.5% to the dealer? >>
This giant car company says:
"We do not accept payment by credit cards. However we can accept payment via Delta, Electron, Solo, Switch and Maestro Debit cards.
|
Just realised I've got a slight hoop to jump through when I collect the car.
It is currently in the Disabled tax class, being ex-motability. This means I've got to get the class changed to PLG before I can tax it. This means I have to visit a DVLA office to get this done and buy a tax disc. So, I can either:
1) Pay for the car and drive it back to Reading (where I live) to get it done at the DVLA office there.
2) Pay for the car, leave it at the dealer and get the train to Borehamwood to get it sorted out, then go back to Willesden Junction to pick the car up. It's not that far but a bit of a convoluted journey, and will take a fair bit of time.
In case 1, I'll be taxing the car retrospectively to the start of February (harumph) but obviously driving 30 odd miles without tax.
Think I'll go option 2, not worth the chance of hassle with ANPR all over west London, I would imagine.
The dealer, being a value for money sort of place, can't help and offerd the advice that; "You'll be all right driving to Reading, can't imagine you'd get pinched, just show them your purchase invoice if you get pulled and they won't have a problem". Which sounds like an accident waiting to happen.
|
|
|
However we can accept payment via Delta, Electron, Solo, Switch and Maestro Debit cards. >>
Then better use a Visa debit card - carries very similar coverage to a Visa credit card.
I have the Halifax version which, when I originally obtained the bank's (building society then) debit card many moons ago, was tied up with Switch.
When a large multi-branch furniture retailer went into administration in the North West recently, the administrators advised that those who had paid by credit card or Visa debit card would still get their orders or money back.
|
>>When a large multi-branch furniture retailer went into administration in the North West recently,
Anybody who buys furniture from that sort of a place deserves what he gets.
I once bought a car from a dealer who - when I wanted to borrow his 'phone to arrange insurance - said, just drive it home and I'll say that you're delivering it for me.
I asked him to put that in writing... needless to say he said "no".
|
....This means I have to visit a DVLA office to get this done and buy a tax disc....
How about driving the Mazda straight to the tax office?
Not as far as Reading, and if you are stopped, you've got as good an excuse as any.
|
It's a good suggestion, ifithelps, but I'm more concerned about being picked up on ANPR than being stopped. I just don't want the hassle of receiving a penalty notice from the faceless computer system and having to try to get out of it. I've just got too much hassle in my life at the moment without having to argue with the courts too.
The thing that winds me up about the ANPR system is that often the innocent will be charged before having the chance to explain themselves. We are no longer innocent until proven guilty.
|
Right, well I've picked up the car now and got it home. Utterly delighted. The auto gearbox is way smoother than the DSG one in our Touran, which is good enough in itself but this Mazda one is joyous. First impressions are that the car oozes quality, the interior is a very pleasant place to be, and it's a pretty handsome drive.
One issue has cropped up already though - the alarm is being triggerd every time a car drives past it whilst it's parked in my street! ARGH! However, there is a way to disable the interior movement sensor and this has done the trick, it must be very sensitive to changes of light coming in to the cabin. Let's hope this doesn't become a problem, as if it starts waking my children up in the night I'm going to drive it in to the Thames. Having wound the windows down first, of course.
Have any other 6 owners had this happen?
As for getting it out of the dealer and home, I took it straight to the DVLA office in Reading to change the tax class from disabled and tax it, backdated to 1st Feb, natch. I'm insured with swiftcover, so had printed my certificate out at home. The DVLA office is festooned with signs saying computer printed insurance certificates are absolutely not acceptable. Erk, thought I. Trouble here. But I presented my certificate to the chappie and he didn't turn a hair. All done and dusted. Now I just have to sit back and wait for my ANPR fine to come through for having no tax.
|
Glad you like the car. I really like my Mazda6 2.0d Sport. Mines a manual and what a nice gearbox it is too.
I've not had a problem with the alarm on mind. I'd have thought it worked on detecting movement ultrasonically and have tilt sensors to detect if the car is being lifted. Can't see it being light related but possibly the movement of the car when something passes.
It's under warranty so go to a dealer?
|
|
|
|
>>Anybody who buys furniture from that sort of a place deserves what he gets.>>
I'm at a loss to understand that comment, especially as it was a nationally known retailer; surely recent events will have demonstrated that times for the retail trade are somewhat difficult.
|
|
|
|
I also learnt last night that if you pay for something and it is from an overdraft you have the same protection as paying by a credit card.
The Consumer Credit Act applies to overdrafts as it is a form of credit.
|
Not heard that before.
The CREDIT CARD transaction, offers added protection, within the UK, as does (in some instances) the Visa Debit Card.
There is still much discussion, regard non UK transactions, IIRC.
VB
|
Be very wary of insurance type warranties. I bought this car on the 19th Feb. The dealer say they inspect all cars fully before sale. I also purchased a warranty from a warranty company who are also well known and reputable, offering their product "directly". On 2nd March I took the car to a main dealer for a service, as it was due, and not to have done so within the next two weeks would have invalidated the warranty I had purchased.
The dealer found that the water pump is leaking, albeit very slightly, as evidenced from some staining on the pump housing. It needs replacing. £284 please. Fine, thought I, I have my warranty, this will be covered. The dealer duly rang the warranty company who flatly refused to authorised the claim, saying that my policy does not cover wear and tear items in the first 90 days.
The car in question is has done 28500 miles, and is out of manufacturer's warranty by 5 weeks. My model has a chain cam engine, and as such, according to the dealer and Mazda themselves, the water pump is designed to last the lifetime of the engine. Therefore, this can not be a wear and tear issue. I spoke to the warranty company again. However, this "direct" warranty company refuse to accept this and told me the servicing dealer has to remove the pump and give them a full report in order to check that a belt has not been overly tightened at some time, causing the failure. Meaning I have to get them to instigate payable work before I know whether I?m covered or not. Nice. In the event they feel the pump has not been serviced correctly, they say they will not pay. How any fault can be considered wear and tear on this pump is beyond me. Also, how can they got out of it by saying it has been serviced incorrectly? The car?s got a fully stamped main dealer history. This is why we buy warranties, to protect ourselves from faults with a vehicle which are not our fault. Shameful chicanery.
I have subsequently contacted the dealer who sold me the car (two answerphone messages not replied to, finally someone picked up the phone after 24 hours trying), who say that I have a 30 day warranty from them, and would the servicing dealer please fax them an estimate for their consideration. In other words, they will say it?s too much and get me jumping through hoops to find a cheaper estimate. Still, at least it looks like they will pay.
Even so, this now means that I effectively have paid for a warranty which covers just about nothing for three months, and once the supplying dealer?s 30 days is up I have two months where any claim will be argued to the death. I am certainly not going to renew the warranty with this company next year.
How I miss my ever reliable Fiat already. :-(
|
I think you are being wholly unreasonable. This is not shameful, nor is it chicanery.
Speaking as somebody else with a directly acquired warranty, I am delighted to hear that they are not prepared to pay out on a pre-existing fault.
Insurance is there to cover things that may or may not happen in the future; not to cover something that happened in the past.
In this case, it looks very much as though the faulty water pump was faulty when you bought the car - why on earth would you expect insurance to cover it?
HOWEVER. It is clearly a pre-existing fault that was present at the time of sale. It is up to your car supermarket to pay for it. And indeed they are going to - and ignore the 30 day warranty; that does not affect your statutory rights which are much more generous.
If you didn't read the terms of the warranty when you bought it, then you have only yourself to blame.
|
.. I effectively have paid for a warranty which covers just about nothing for three months ... >>
I agree with Mapmaker. But if you believe that you have been "missold" an insurance product, you may have a case to report to relevant Regulatory body or bodies. Advice should be available on moneysavingexpert.com
IMO, Consumer protection laws work if either the seller likes to play ball and keep customer happy and/or the customer knows his/her rights and can robustly defend them and/or the customer is prepared to take the issue ultimately to Court and let the Court decide on whose interpretaion of the law or contract is correct.
In simple terms, IMO:
The 6 month SOGA rule that says some thing like "the fault is assumed to be present unless the seller proves it wasn't" is your right in Statute, and cannot be taken away by the seller. But you have to be sure of your case and be prepared to have it tested in Court. As with most laws, a case can be made for each side but in the end the decision lies with theCourt.
|
|
|
Nonsense, Mapmaker. I buy a warranty precisely to cover myself for faults with the car of which I am unaware. Why one earth else would I buy it.
I was well aware of the terms of the warranty when I purchased it and this fault is covered under those terms. This is not a wear and tear item, which is the get out they are trying to use. There is no mention of the fault being pre-existing, nor any mention of this being an exclusion in those terms. Had I not needed to service this car until after the 30 days provided by the supplying dealer, I would not have discovered this fault and the warranty company would have tried to get out of paying under the wear and tear exclusion - and that is the issue. It is not a wear and tear item. Do you not understand that?
Chicanery. They were attempting to get out of paying a valid claim. Lucky for me and them that the supplying dealer is acting.
I am glad, however, that you seem to be delighted in what may well have been someone else's misfortune. Well done you.
I dread having to deal with them again if I have to, and they will not be getting my renewal.
|
... I dread having to deal with them again ... >>
Alanovich: May I suggest you read this page, and take note if any of the dealers mentioned there are of interest to you:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/hatstandard/index.htm
Also note that near the end of that page, HJ says:
"The HAT standard clearly recognises ongoing customer service records based on feedback directly received from Honest John readers, emailers, backroomers and results from surveys and is current at the date each HAT standard is awarded."
|
This is not a wear and tear item which is the get out they are trying to use.
Quite simple really - get a written statement from Mazda that the part is designed to last the lifetime of the car (you say earlier in the thread that this is what they have stated). Present to aforesaid warranty company. End of argument!
As an aside, beware of the warranty company of which we speak. I had a renewal invitation, which I did not get round to accepting, and next thing I know there is a letter thanking me for my renewal, and telling me what my new direct debit would be. I had NOT renewed, and in addition there wasn't even a rider on the renewal notice, as there frequently is with insurance companies, that they will assume renewal unless notified otherwise. Luckily I managed to cancel the existing direct debit in time. This sounds like sharp practice to me, and I intend to register a complaint with them.
|
.. This sounds like sharp practice to me, and I intend to register a complaint with them. >>
Mike H
May I suggest that you check:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/hatstandard/index.htm
and if the relevant Company is on the list, make sure you tell them that you are contacting HJ about it too.
Edited by jbif on 04/03/2009 at 18:23
|
>>Quite simple really - get a written statement from Mazda that the part is designed to last the lifetime of the car (you say earlier in the thread that this is what they have stated). Present to aforesaid warranty company. End of argument!<<
Not quite that simple! Mazda will probably only commit to ..... if installed correctly.... All the warranty company have to do is show is that the wear was typical of wear caused by an overtightened fanbelt. And then refute the claim!
p
|
>>I am glad, however, that you seem to be delighted in what may well have been
>>someone else's misfortune. Well done you.
Grief! Surely I didn't write that I am delighting in your misfortune. A bottle of champagne to you if I did and you can point out where.
|
Maybe you'd feel happier if they were to exclude it under this head:
we will not pay for costs caused by, arising from, or connected with, the following.
14 Repairing or replacing parts which we believe were
faulty or could have been identified by a suitably
qualified engineer as being faulty before this policy started.
www.warrantydirect.co.uk/pdfs/6727-WD_Policy_BK_Se...f page 9
|
Alanovich,
Sorry to hear the Mazda is acting up.
Using hindsight, I suppose you should have said nowt, carried on driving the car as it is, keeping an eye on the coolant, until 90-plus days had elapsed, then contacted the warranty company.
Wonder what they would have said then?
|
>>Wonder what they would have said then?
"Mr Foreman of the Jury, what is your verdict?"
"Guilty of insurance fraud"
"Two Years at Her Majesty's Pleasure"
|
Yes, MM, I expect that's where they would move after exhausting the wear and tear get out. They'd have to prove that the fault was pre-exisiting, and no doubt that's what they'd try to do.
As for the delighting in misfortune bit, well, your message said that you were delighted they were not paying out, which would indeed have been a misfortune from my point of view. So not sure what you're saying. But don't worry about the champers, I prefer Cava anyway.
I bought a warranty expecting it to insure me against unexpected costs associated to purchasing a used car, which is a risky business. It's not unreasonable to expect the warranty to then cover faults with the car whenever I discover them, especially where the faults fall outside the warranty's exclusions.
As I am now getting the fault sorted by the supplying dealer, I wil not pursue the matter, however it leaves me with a poor impression of my warranty company and leaves me not inclined to do further business with them. They were presented with a non-wear and tear claim and attempted to get out of it using a wear and tear get out. Very poor form.
|
>They were presented with a non-wear and tear claim and attempted to get out of it using a >wear and tear get out. Very poor form.
And there, in a nutshell, you have the business model of the industry. Its business model and all its systems are focused to take as much money as it can and pay out as little as it can. At no point is customer service a contributory factor.
|
... I wil not pursue the matter, however it leaves me with a poor impression of my warranty company ... >>
In that case, I hope it is not one that HJ awarded his HAT standard to.
IMO, When consumers do not register their complaints/dissatisfaction with the service they have received, they are doing a disservice to other fellow consumers.
|
>>They'd have to prove that the fault was pre-exisiting, and no doubt that's what they'd
>>try to do.
Isn't that what you're trying to do to the garage so they fix it.
>>As for the delighting in misfortune bit, well, your message said that you were
>>delighted they were not paying out, which would indeed have been a misfortune from
>>my point of view.
There is a world of difference between being delighted that your shiny new car has broken down - which would be delighting in your misfortune - and being delighted that a warranty provider that I am also using is not paying out on something that it isn't supposed to cover, which would result in my own premiums going up.
|
The insurance company has to have these kind of conditions, other wise a dealer would sell ropey old cars with loads of faults, and the insurance company would be bankrupt after a fortnight.
Think about it
MVP
|
So what does the insurance company pay out for?
Say the weep wasn't spotted at service, the OP carried on driving unawares, and the water pump failed completely six months later.
What should happen then?
Any failure on a car can be put down to wear and tear on the basis: "It was working, you've used it, now it isn't working, therefore your use/wear and tear of the component has broken it."
|
>>So what does the insurance company pay out for?
Wear and tear on items after three months are up.
Sudden catastrophic failures within the first three months.
|
a warranty provider that I am also using is not paying out on something that it isn't supposed to cover which would result in my own premiums going up.
How very selfless. Would you have been so thrilled at the prospect of not being paid out?
Most other people seem to have twigged by now that the get out they attempted was invalid. How much more clearly can I explain that this is not a wear and tear item?
Anyway, today's news is that the car's supplying dealer, Car Giant, have agreed to pay for the repair in full, and directly to the main dealer who are effecting the repair.
Case closed.
I do take the above point about the HAT Standard and not registering a complaint, and will consider doing so.
|
... Most other people seem to have twigged by now that the get out they attempted was invalid. How much more clearly can I explain that this is not a wear and tear item? .. >>
Assuming that it is the Company linked by Mapmaker, and strongly hinted by Alanovich in his posts, then it is worth noting what they say about "wear and tear":
www.warrantydirect.co.uk/wear.html
"With alternative warranties disputes often arise in respect of wear & tear because they incorporate a "wear & tear" exclusion clause. At the time of any claim it is all too easy for the administrator to refuse your claim by saying; "of course it's broken, the car's done 40,000 miles and it's worn out."
All Warranty Direct polices protect you against failure caused by wear & tear because parts can fail due to wear & tear at anytime. Consider these facts, the average motorist covers about 10,000 miles per year so by the end of the normal 3 year manufacturer warranty the vehicle has covered about 30,000 miles - yet 44% of vehicles require repairs in year 4 and many of these repairs can be attributed to 'wear & tear.' So beware of any policy that doesn't offer, or even suggests you don't need, wear & tear cover and always pay any extra demanded if wear & tear is unwisely promoted as an option.
If you are extending an existing warranty or your vehicle has been serviced in the past month or we have inspected it prior to coming on cover - your wear & tear protection will start from day one - otherwise your vehicle's wear & tear cover will start after the first 90 days. We adopt this policy because our years of experience have shown that wear & tear failures arising in the first 90 days on cover are almost always pre-existing faults that were apparent before the vehicle came on cover. Upon renewal, this cover obviously applies from day one. This policy is unique to Warranty Direct and reflects our position as industry leaders for customer service and satisfaction.
If your vehicle has a mileage of less than 60,000 we will pay the full cost of parts and labour. For vehicles over 60,000, the table below shows the percentage we will pay depending on the vehicle's mileage at the time of breakdown. We always pay the labour cost in full.
Mileage Parts Labour
Up to 60,000 miles 100% 100%
Up to 70,000 miles 90% 100%
Up to 80,000 miles 80% 100%
Up to 90,000 miles 70% 100%
Up to 100,000 miles 60% 100%
Over 100,000 miles 50% 100%
Our simple chart let's you know exactly where you stand from day one, avoiding dispute and annoyance on your part. Some companies will cover you against wear & tear and then exclude 'normal deterioration' - watch the small print.
A good example of a wear related failure is a failed water pump, which is as a result of worn bearings This type of claim will be rejected by a warranty policy that does not cover failure caused by wear & tear. "
What can be more simpler to understand than that?
www.warrantydirect.co.uk/dealdirect.html
"Our business depends on your recommendation, so we will be doing everything within our power to ensure that you are delighted."
www.warrantydirect.co.uk/terms_of_biz.html
Edited by jbif on 05/03/2009 at 14:23
|
jbif, if you are implying that I fail to understand the policy, then you are incorrect. They give a typical example of a water pump, however mine is not a typical case. They dismissed the claim out of hand without considering the following:
The main dealer, and the manufacturer themselves, have told me that the water pump on my car is expected to last the lifetime of the engine without needing to be replaced. It has failed at 3 years and 28500 miles. The unit should not "wear out" prematurely. It has, however, failed. They are trying to say it has worn out, and the manufacturer says they don't wear out. Therefore it's a failure, not wear. No?
The case is closed, however I still feel they were in the wrong.
|
The case is closed, ... >>
If you think that their "wear and tear" argument was wrong, why allow the case to be closed?
OK, your car is being sorted by the seller, but surely [as you say "I still feel they were in the wrong"] you still have a grievance against the warranty company and therefore surely you should take it up with them using their complaints procedure.
|
|
Yes, you are right and I have already said that I will consider doing so.
|
Yes, you are right and I have already said that I will consider doing so.
I am pleased to hear that. My point in quoting from their website was that they make very reassuring noises about their fairness, etc. and you would get the impression that they are unlikely to use smallprint as a get-out.
It is then galling to discover that a claim is allegedly turned down out of hand for a spurious reason and without proper investigation. This is why throughout this thread I have suggested that it merits some form of complaint, either direct with the Company or via HJ's HAT award scheme; thereby giving them a form of right-to-reply.
Edited by jbif on 05/03/2009 at 15:01
|
Having read right through this interesting thread, I am puzzled why it has run for so long. It seems to me that as you found the 'fault' so soon after purchase, it was much more logical to assume that it existed then, and the dealer should fix; not that it should be a warranty claim.
Of course, maybe by looking for your best 'bargain' financially, you took the risk of buying an unserviced and unchecked car? Luckily your seller has accepted its responsibility, and you seem to have lost nothing. I hope the car still feels like a bargain.
|
I am puzzled why it has run for so long. It seems to me that as you found the 'fault' so soon after purchase, ... >>
Andrew-T:
I am puzzled. AFAICS, Alanovich reported the problem for the fisrt time on Wed 4 Mar 09 10:53.
i.e. TWO days ago.
How does that count as "run for so long"?
Edited by jbif on 05/03/2009 at 19:49
|
How does that count as "run for so long"?
Upwards of 25 posts on a fairly basic simple point, is what puzzled me.
|
It seems to me that as you found the 'fault' so soon afterpurchase it was much more logical to assume that it existed then and the dealer should fix; not that it should be a warranty claim.
Yes, you are right AT. When I was informed of the fault, my inital reaction was: "Fine, I'll make a warranty claim", as the purchase of the warranty was fresh in my mind. I had purchased the warranty as I had thought that the selling dealer provided no cover at all. With hindsight, I should have contacted the selling dealer first, and once I had done so it became clear that they would cover me.
Car is now repaired and flying again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
