Warranty - to extend, or not to extend...
- Thread starter JuniorJet
- Start date
Has anybody got any experience with the warranty direct lite extra care policy. Covers up to the value of the car for any breakdown related issue. It's only £265 per year.
I'm tempted add to be honest it's only the big stuff that I'd like to be covered for, I.e Vanos, Rod bearing etc. Any catastrophic incidents would be covered, not much pet year for piece of mind against the big items
I'm tempted add to be honest it's only the big stuff that I'd like to be covered for, I.e Vanos, Rod bearing etc. Any catastrophic incidents would be covered, not much pet year for piece of mind against the big items
StevenH72 said:
I had it on my previous X5, but was rather frustrated that from a £600 bill, they only paid £150 because:
- Diagnostics charge not covered and BMW won't touch the car without doing that.
- In this case, it was the glow plug control unit, for which the manifold needed removing. The removing of the manifold was not covered as they only pay for the removal of the plug control unit and not any other parts you need to remove to get to it.
- at 60k miles, they deduct by default 30 or 40% of the charges covered by them again (can't remember the exact mileage).
All in all, the deductions made the whole thing useless.
if i was you , i wouldnt extend 
if something breaks just fix it ... they know they are making money on people like you.. othervise there wouldnt be a warranty at all.
I had the car for three years, and nothing gone wrong ... and the warranty would have cost me more than 3k for nothing...
if something breaks just fix it ... they know they are making money on people like you.. othervise there wouldnt be a warranty at all.I had the car for three years, and nothing gone wrong ... and the warranty would have cost me more than 3k for nothing...
pvr said:
I've gone with this.
£265 warranty for the year.
Labour rates are covered (up to £200/hr)
70% of parts are covered (30% not covered due to car being 7 years old).
5 claims per year up to value of car
£50 excess
For me it's worth it to cover against some of the big issues, Vanos, rod bearings etc.
Maybe their T&Cs have changed since your policy but I queried about "consequential" work (i.e. have to remove undamaged parts to repair damage) and was told that it would be covered, that all work necesary to repair the breakdown damage would be covered.
My policy with WD was 3 years ago and at sales time it was all lovely, at claim time I had to battle to get paid and had to threaten them each time (i.e. was not going to renew the policy etc). I had the main dealer cover as well, and even that was a battle as they disagreed with the dealer rate and the dealer estimate.
In other words, they said that according to them the job should be say £500, and the dealer would say - no way, it is £800 to do that and you are left in the middle with WD only agreeing to pay £500 for that job. You have to pay for the job and they pay you back, so if you get the dealer to do the £800 job you are yet again short as the payback is then £500 (minus all deductions as well of course).
In other words, they said that according to them the job should be say £500, and the dealer would say - no way, it is £800 to do that and you are left in the middle with WD only agreeing to pay £500 for that job. You have to pay for the job and they pay you back, so if you get the dealer to do the £800 job you are yet again short as the payback is then £500 (minus all deductions as well of course).
pvr said:
That is a pain, there is nothing in the policy wording that mentions that they'll only pay a "reasonable cost", I think in that situation I'd have grounds for citing onerous contract terms.
Do you happen to still have your policy lying around? I wouldn't mind giving it a once over to compare?
I do have the policy still, but these details are actually not in there !! It just says things like what you said, we will pay dealer rates, we will pay for the work and so on. But then they redefine words as "work" is than not defined as what that means - i.e. they have an internal definition of what something should cost and that is the "work" they will pay for. Or in the example of the manifold, their expert opinion was that it did not need removing so if the dealer wants to remove it, they will not pay for it as it was not required (the dealer obviously states the opposite).
Or in another typical case where you would change something in a pair for example, but only one side failed - they will only pay for the one that actually failed - not for the one that should be replaced at the same time and the dealer tells you that it does not make sense what WD wants to do.
For you I guess it is the peace of mind, but as long as you are prepared to fight it every time as nothing is documented to that level of detail in any policy document.
Or in another typical case where you would change something in a pair for example, but only one side failed - they will only pay for the one that actually failed - not for the one that should be replaced at the same time and the dealer tells you that it does not make sense what WD wants to do.
For you I guess it is the peace of mind, but as long as you are prepared to fight it every time as nothing is documented to that level of detail in any policy document.
pvr said:
Basic common law will dictate how disputes around ambiguous (contra proferentem) or onerous contract terms are dealt with. I'm typically a "non-warranty" guy (i.e. they're never "value" for money in the long run, else warranty providers wouldn't exist), however, to give me coverage against the big ticket items (£3k+ repairs), I'm more than willing to pay a small premium and fight against WD should they seek to rely on ambiguities.
I'm hoping to never need it (the car's in A+ condition and shows no signs of any issues), but as with all of these things, time will tell.