jkeller2791
Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon
I will copy/paste this from the FTC/BBB/Oregon DOJ complaints I have filed. Omitting of course the personal information. I believe this is covered by The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 1975, and the Unlawful Trade Act here in Oregon.
Complaint Description:
I purchased a used vehicle that was provided with a 3rd Party Service Contract. The dealer incorrectly, perhaps knowingly, did not fill out the Service Contract properly nor did the pay the additional surcharge to ensure a vehicle with a lift kit and oversized tires was covered. The vehicle was purchased with these existing modifications from the dealer when the service contract was agreed upon. Three days after purchasing the vehicle there was a transmission failure. I called the Service Contract Provider and checked to see if there were specific instructions to follow when seeking repairs. I was informed that they had a "Fleet Contract" with AAMCO Transmissions, so I agreed to take the vehicle to that facility for repair. (In hopes of saving them some money.) After dismantling the transmission the repair facility contacted the Service Contract Provider to authorize the parts, the Service Contract Provider decided to send an inspector. The inspector noticed the lift kit and the oversized tires and denied the claim. I have attempted to work this out as an adult and have contacted the dealership numerous times to reach an agreement. I have not been offered anything close to what I was originally supposed to be covered for.
Your Desired Resolution:
I am seeking full compensation of the repair minus the new clutch kit. Repair =$1,740 - clutch kit $85=$1,655 plus the cost of the rental vehicle +$410 = 2,065. I would also like a clearly worded written contract to provide the comparable coverage that the Service Contract was supposed to provide in the first place. Total= $2,065 + Valid Service Contract. I believe that in complete fairness that the time lapsed should not be reflected in the valid service contract, as I have no current coverage without legal action.
I will copy/paste this from the FTC/BBB/Oregon DOJ complaints I have filed. Omitting of course the personal information. I believe this is covered by The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 1975, and the Unlawful Trade Act here in Oregon.
Complaint Description:
I purchased a used vehicle that was provided with a 3rd Party Service Contract. The dealer incorrectly, perhaps knowingly, did not fill out the Service Contract properly nor did the pay the additional surcharge to ensure a vehicle with a lift kit and oversized tires was covered. The vehicle was purchased with these existing modifications from the dealer when the service contract was agreed upon. Three days after purchasing the vehicle there was a transmission failure. I called the Service Contract Provider and checked to see if there were specific instructions to follow when seeking repairs. I was informed that they had a "Fleet Contract" with AAMCO Transmissions, so I agreed to take the vehicle to that facility for repair. (In hopes of saving them some money.) After dismantling the transmission the repair facility contacted the Service Contract Provider to authorize the parts, the Service Contract Provider decided to send an inspector. The inspector noticed the lift kit and the oversized tires and denied the claim. I have attempted to work this out as an adult and have contacted the dealership numerous times to reach an agreement. I have not been offered anything close to what I was originally supposed to be covered for.
Your Desired Resolution:
I am seeking full compensation of the repair minus the new clutch kit. Repair =$1,740 - clutch kit $85=$1,655 plus the cost of the rental vehicle +$410 = 2,065. I would also like a clearly worded written contract to provide the comparable coverage that the Service Contract was supposed to provide in the first place. Total= $2,065 + Valid Service Contract. I believe that in complete fairness that the time lapsed should not be reflected in the valid service contract, as I have no current coverage without legal action.