• Report: #907600

Complaint Review: CarChex

  • Submitted: Fri, July 06, 2012
  • Updated: Fri, July 27, 2012

  • Reported By: BUSTED! — Connecticut United States of America
10950 Gilroy Road Internet United States of America

CarChex Used car owners beware! Internet

*UPDATE Employee: Facts about the claim

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

Don't believe everything you hear and read:  I've been told by mechanics to stay away from extended auto warranties because they are not worth the tremendous cost.  That they promise you the moon and you get zip when the bill comes as they will weasle their way out of paying claims any way they can.  Well, I didn't listen because I wanted peace of mind knowing my used vehicle repairs would be pretty much covered under one of the better options and with an allegedly BBB protected extended warranty company.  I was pretty much confident that I would be in good hands when I spent weeks comparing the top rated warranty companies and saw CarChex had the best rating.  Little did I know!

Two months after my warranty went into effect my used vehicle showed mechanical issues.  I took it to my mechanic and he found numerous things were wrong and needing repair.  The bill came to $1800 for all the necessary repairs.  But there were other minor issues which the warranty would not address nor did they address 90% of my repairs stating the issues were all "pre-existing"!!! 

Having just bought the vehicle and not knowing it's history, how am I to know what problems would crop up under my new ownership?  So I get the majority of the repairs denied because the previous owner did not care for the vehicle properly??  Is that fair??  I bought the extended warranty to cover any mechanical issues henceforth, not in hindsight!  Then I'm told I should have gotten the vehicle inspected before purchasing it.  Hello??  Who can see problem areas that are hidden under or behind the engine, transmission or fuel area when they are all encased???  The sources of the issues were found only after dismantling!!  I certainly did not appreciate the condescending attitude of the claims reps one bit.

Thus, I decided to cancel the warranty as it was costing me nearly $2500 to cover what?  In an older vehicle with mileage above 60,000 will everything that fails in this vehicle be considered pre-existing hereon?  So I'm paying all this money for an extended warranty that will not cover much and I'm paying out of pocket as well?  Does that make sense?  Not! 

So if you have an older vehicle, beware as you will be punished as I was for purchasing an older vehicle with "old" issues that you are not aware of and paying out of pocket. 

I see in the contract that there is a $50 cancellation fee and if a claim was made, forget about getting your money back.  I've been very misled and disappointed to find the ratings of this company are not justified nor merited.  But to those who have newer vehicles, good luck!! 

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 07/06/2012 09:56 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/CarChex/internet/CarChex-Used-car-owners-beware-Internet-907600. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on CarChex

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
0Author 1Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 UPDATE Employee

Facts about the claim

AUTHOR: Brian - (USA)

My name is Brian Delman and I am the Customer Support Manager at CARCHEX. First I would like to thank you for the opportunity to reply.
We are a bit puzzled by this complaint, as in every conversation Mrs. Ogren has had with a CARCHEX employee we tried our best to assist with the situation, and she seemed accepting and extremely appreciative of our help.  Here are the facts of what occurred. On 06/13/2012 a claim was called in to the claim administrator for multiple items:
1. Fuel Filler Tube
2. Intake Manifold Gasket, Thermostat housing leak
3. Pan Gasket Trans Fluid Leak
4. Belts Squealing
5. All 4 stabilizer links are worn
The repairs for the intake manifold leak and the pan gasket leak were approved without question. As with any service contract, hoses and tubes are not included in the policy so the Fuel Filler Tube was properly denied. As for the belts they are regular maintenance as Mrs. Ogren even acknowledged when she spoke to CARCHEX that she knew when purchasing this used vehicle those belts would have to be changed.
That brings me to all 4 stabilizer links being worn. The contract was 67 days past the day of purchase when the claim was made. She had only driven 1001 miles during that period. The claims administrator deemed the 4 stabilizer links as being pre-existing solely because it is quite impossible for ALL 4 stabilizer links to be worn in only 1001 miles. Mrs. Ogren points out in her post that I bought the extended warranty to cover any mechanical issues henceforth, not in hindsight however the components that needed to be repaired (4 Stabilizer Links) were damaged prior to her purchasing her Extended Vehicle Protection and likely prior to her purchase of this used vehicle. 
Whenever purchasing a used vehicle CARCHEX always recommends getting a third party independent inspection prior to purchase. Mrs. Ogren stated that she had the vehicle inspected prior to purchasing the vehicle. As it turns out, it was inspected by the dealer selling her the vehicle. The vehicle was also sold to her in an as-is condition with no 30 day warranty. Thats why a third party inspection is critical.  Any vehicle being sold as-is by a dealer without a 30 day warranty should be a huge red flag to a potential buyer.
I can understand why CARCHEX is getting the brunt of Mrs. Ogrens frustration because she likely cant go back to the selling dealer who sold the car as-is and ask them to take responsibility, but that fact doesnt make those pre-existing repairs the Extended Vehicle Protection administrators responsibility either.
This is a very unfortunate situation and we do sympathize for Mrs. Ogren but CARCHEX and the Extended Vehicle Protection Administrator have done nothing wrong here and on the contrary have only tried to help. Mrs. Ogren even stated on the phone to CARCHEX on how much she really liked the CARCHEX representatives she had spoken with along the way including myself which is why this posting was such a shock to me.
So as you can see, based on the actual facts, this was not a case of CARCHEX or the Extended Vehicle Protection provider not fulfilling their contractual obligations but simply a case in which a used vehicle was not sold as advertised and a buyer who didnt make sure the vehicle was in the condition the seller represented prior to buying. Sadly it happens all the time but the intention of an Extended Vehicle Protection Plan is to help pay for future surprise repairs not to pay for part failures that occurred prior to the purchase of the contract as was the case with the four worn stabilizer links.
As always, the CEO of CARCHEX, Jason Goldsmith, makes his information readily available on our website and every email that is sent out. If you are ever in need of assistance, you can reach him at CEO@CARCHEX.com or 1-877-227-2439 ext 1449.
Thank you
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?