Has anyone taken out a policy with these companies? I like to find out as much as I can to determine if it is something I require.
I've looked at warrantydirect and am a little bit confused.One of the points listed under the FULL PROTECTION is "Cover against damage caused by wear and tear",my understanding is if your brake disk were wearing out and it somewhat damaged the brake pads,then they will replace your brake pads and disc.
After going thought the online quote,viewing the policy details it says:
Standard Cover
Protection against the cost of parts and labour following a mechanical or electrical failure, cover against failure of a part or a part that is about to fail causing even greater damage including those parts that have failed due to wear and tear.
Claim limit = £5,000
Excess = £15
Why Warranty Direct
We only offer warranty cover without Wear and Tear exclusion, which means that if a covered part fails and is worn you will be covered and no Consequential loss to covered parts exclusion, which means that if a failure is caused by a non-insured part you will be covered
No other warranty offers this level of cover
This is where I am confused.Early on it says "Cover against damage caused by wear and tear" then later it says (my understanding) something entirly different.
Please can someone clear this for me. Thank you.
|
|
From what you're quoting it looks like it doesn't cover wear and tear but damage caused by worn out items. E.g. if the brake pads are worn out and damage the discs then the discs will be replaced. The only problem is, these warranty companies usually stipulate that the vehicle must be serviced according to the manufacturers service schedule and if your brake pads have worn out, then they must have been neglected at the last service (or not changed when due) so they would probably not pay out. Read the small print. Personally I don't think any of these warranties are worth the paper they are written on, as there are so many get out clauses, that you need a solicitor to interpret them.
|
|
|
The Con Loss exclusion would normally say that if an uninsured part failed and caused damage to an insured part, that would not be covered.
Wear and Tear exclusion would normally say that if something failed through wear and tear, then it was not insured and if in failing it damaged an insured part, then that was not covered either.
What you're quoting suggests that neither of those exclusions will apply.
However, HJ is correct. Ring Warranty Direct and ask them. Or even better, write to them to get a written response. I would be interested in that response.
|
|
|
