LEX Freechoice - RAC cover question

[Chips123]

Hi all,

I have recently discovered something that has annoyed me a little.

I finished a 3 year car personal lease with Lex Freechoice in december. The salesman advised me to take the RAC cover as an extra and as it was only £3 or so a month I thought why not.

I have since discovered that the particular car I leased (& subsequently opted to buy) actually comes with 3 years AA cover included!

Do you think its worth contacting Lex to see if they will refund the payments for the RAC cover or are they likely to tell me to get stuffed... I know its only a little over £100 but its still money that was wasted....

[calvi36]

Hi Chips. Go for it, you should not have been sold the RAC cover as an extra as you were already covered. Most cars come with 2 or 3 years breakdown cover anyway, provided by the manufacturer. Also as it was a leased vehicle the cover is already built into the monthly rental. The lex quoting system does allow this to be removed to reduce monthly payments. It is just another way of upping the rental for something that is not required. What make and model was it btw?

[Chips123]

Originally Posted by calvi36

Hi Chips. Go for it, you should not have been sold the RAC cover as an extra as you were already covered. Most cars come with 2 or 3 years breakdown cover anyway, provided by the manufacturer. Also as it was a leased vehicle the cover is already built into the monthly rental. The lex quoting system does allow this to be removed to reduce monthly payments. It is just another way of upping the rental for something that is not required. What make and model was it btw?

Hi there- I leased through Lex FreeChoice, and you do actually get the option of adding or removing the RAC cover, I only added it at the recommendation of the salesman anyway!

Its a 53 plate Renault Megane, covered by the Renault Assistance Cover - 3 years AA cover for cars registered before 01/09/06.

In the middle of drafting a letter now to them - will keep updated as to what they come back with.

[patdavies]

You need to make it clear that you were mis-sold this cover.

Just saying that you have recently discovered that you don't need it is too weak.

[Chips123]

Thanks again for comments, I have drafted the letter below - Do you think this will be suitable?


Lex FreeChoice
Heathside Park,
Heathside Park Road,
Stockport
Cheshire
SK3 0RB


Dear Sir\Madam,


I am writing in regards to my recently closed account with you - Fleet No. XXXXXXXX.


Your records will show that I leased a Renault Megane (Reg - XXXXXX) and that the option for RAC cover was included with my lease agreement – This cover was taken out on the recommendation of the salesman who dealt with the contract.


I have now discovered that my car was already supplied with AA cover as part of the “Renault Assistance Service” that was running at the time of my cars registration. This can easily be confirmed by Renault if required. The cover supplied by this service was valid for the 3 year lease period and was of an equivalent level to the RAC cover that was purchased through your company.


As this information would have been readily available to you at the time of the contract being agreed, I believe that I was mis-sold the RAC cover by your company and as such I request all payments made by me for the RAC cover be refunded, including any interest charged over the 3 year lease period.


I look forward to your prompt response to this matter.


Yours faithfully,

[calvi36]

Try this one, see what you think chips. It is important to state a timescale, yours no theirs, failing to state a timescale gives them an open date to respond to. This is your timescale, you state the deadlines and you stick to them. Lex are mebers of the BVRLA and should abide by their code of practise.

Originally Posted by Chips123

Thanks again for comments, I have drafted the letter below - Do you think this will be suitable?


Lex FreeChoice
Heathside Park,
Heathside Park Road,
Stockport
Cheshire
SK3 0RB


Dear Sir\Madam,


I am writing in regards to my recently closed account with you - Fleet No. XXXXXXXX.


Your records will show that I leased a Renault Megane (Reg - XXXXXX) and that the option for RAC cover was sold as an addition to my lease agreement – This cover was sold to me by the salesman who dealt with the contract.


I have now discovered that my car was already supplied with AA cover as part of the “Renault Assistance Service” that was running at the time of my cars registration. This can easily be confirmed by Renault if required. The cover supplied by this service was valid for the 3 year lease period and was of an equivalent level to the RAC cover that was purchased through your company. This cover was not required at all and I was mis-sold additional cover that could never be used.


As this information was readily available to you at the time of the contract being agreed, I state that I was mis-sold the RAC cover by your company and as such I demand all payments made by me for the RAC cover be refunded, including interest charged at 8% over the 3 year lease period.


I look forward to receiving your response within 14 days. If you fail to respond within my timescale then I shall issue a letter before action and I shall also report this matter to the Financial Services Authority and the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association.


Yours faithfully,

[patdavies]

Nice one

[Chips123]

Thats great - appreciate your help, I will get that off Monday and update here once they respond!

[calvi36]

no worries chips, please keep us informed of any developments.

[BritBrat]

This cover was not required at all and I was mis-sold additional cover that could never be used.

Can I ask why it could not be used?

Maybe a silly question but why can't you have two covers one with AA and another with RAC, it's not like insurance as with that you can't insure the same thing twice.

[calvi36]

why would you want to pay for a second form of coverage that is equivalent to the coverage given by Renault via the AA? Maybe it's just me but I don't like the idea of being duped into paying for something I already have FOC!

[Chips123]

Originally Posted by calvi36

why would you want to pay for a second form of coverage that is equivalent to the coverage given by Renault via the AA? Maybe it's just me but I don't like the idea of being duped into paying for something I already have FOC!

This is exactly how I feel... and considering that around 10 or so manufacturers provide AA cover for between 1-3 years with new cars then makes you wonder how many people are in the same boat.

If nothing else they need it bringing to their attention then maybe they will be a little more forthcoming with information in the future when trying to sell RAC cover to new customers who don't need it.

[Dalnahaine]

Originally Posted by BritBrat

Can I ask why it could not be used?

Maybe a silly question but why can't you have two covers one with AA and another with RAC, it's not like insurance as with that you can't insure the same thing twice.

One of the main reasons you couldn't use the RAC would be that they would not be authorised by Renault to repair the car and therefore doing so could invalidate the warranty

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by Dalnahaine

One of the main reasons you couldn't use the RAC would be that they would not be authorised by Renault to repair the car and therefore doing so could invalidate the warranty

I'm sorry to rubbish your first post on the forum, but what you are saying is just nonsense.

Renault do not need to authorise breakdown services or anybody else to order to maintain the warranty.

The car does not even need to be serviced by a Renault franchised dealer in order to retain the warranty - although it must be serviced according to Renault's programme and Renault approved parts used.

Britbrat actually has a valid point. It is wrong that the RAC cover "could never be used"; it is simply mis-sold because it is unnecessary as a similar service is supplied by the manufacturer (via the AA).

[Chips123]

I did actually reword that portion of the letter to say the cover sold to me was unnecessary and in effect useless, rather than could never be used.

[pingu-lingo]

RAC breakdown cover sold to you covers you for all the things the AA warranty breakdown policy doesn't cover (I work for RAC on the Lex breakdown desk so I should know) or it will give you a higher level of cover.

Mostly it would cover you for breakdowns that are classed as driver errors - which includes accidents, wheel changes, fuel contaminations, getting vec stuck in mud etc AA will sometimes attend for these things under the warranty breakdown but either will charge or only tow you within 10 miles.
(I'm not AA bashing - they are limited by the fact that the breaksdown cover is manufacturer warranty based -vehicle manufacturers are the ones who set the limits)

Plus AA vehicle warranty for the vehicle tends to run for longer than the AA breakdown cover. So eg, Vauxhall usually is 12 month breakdown cover & 3 years vehicle warranty. So you probably wouldnt have had AA breakdown for the whole period of your lease.

You'll probably find that Lex might argue these points in response to your letter but good luck with getting your money back though!

[BritBrat]

Thanks for the replies, I did find them very usefull.

I was asking because we have always been with the RAC but we have a new car that comes with AA cover, I have canceled the RAC but was thinking of getting it again but with a lower package (Family at the moment) so having two to choose from but at a lower cost than I was paying before.

I am also trying to rejoin the RAC using quidco and any other discount like Tesco I can get, there is no rush and I am just waiting for the right deal.

EDITED:

We cross posted pingu-lingo, your comment fits in to what I was thinking and why I was going to have the two options. We are currently on the top RAC family cover.