So if totally unsuitable for this age and millage of car ( I fully agree ), then the policy it is mis sold? Just as PPI was unsuitable and covers nothing. I have exhausted the letter to CEO routes....

I add that Audi do not reject the claim because these components are not covered by the policy. In fact they confirm the parts are covered by the policy. They reject the claim only because it is their view that the components failed due to wear and tear and the policy does not cover wear and tear. In other words, don't use the car and there will be no wear or tear and therefore no failure of components.. But I think the onus would be on them to prove the failure is wear and tear and not on me to prove it is not...

I have attached my policy document. Since what is now on their web site may differ from the one that applied when I was sold my policy. I do not see any text that excludes oil leaks. In fact the following text is used showing that oil leaks are explicitly covered: Components covered: • Oil leaks: Seals and gaskets replaced to rectify the oil leaks on the components in this list of cover. Note. I did not have the "named component cover" (which is less comprehensive). I had the "All component cover". Meaning all components are covered (not just the named ones) The car had 92742 miles when the policy was sold to me. The policy allowed a maximum of 15,000 additional miles. So cover was valid up to 12 months or 107742 miles. The car had 106707 miles when the faults were diagnosed by Audi main dealer (inside 12 month period). Car is 3.0 TDI Quattro, Avant, 245 ps variant. I agree this does not stack up. I have had Audi Warranties in the past on other cars and they have been superb. Which is why I paid what I did for this policy. There were plenty of cheaper alternatives out there. Thanks so far... Audi_Extended_Warranty_Policy_2015_02_05.pdf

I bought the warranty from Audi.co.uk web site for just over £2k. See this page - https://www.audi.co.uk/owners-area/audi-insurance-warranties-and-service-plans/audi-warranties/extended-warranty.html I have not had the repairs done yet (because the warranty provider is not authorising the repairs) The cost of the warranty reflected the age and mileage of the vehicle. More miles, more risk hence higher price paid for warranty.... Full main dealer service history with additional inspections on this car (over and above the requirements).

Party because it was 5 years old And also to protect me in the event of component failure situations like the one I describe here. The £2k+ would have been money well spent if the warranty provider had met their contractual obligations to pay for the repairs. The likelihood of a older or higher mileage car having a component failure is far higher than a newer, lower mileage car. Consequently they price the warranty of older cars (and cars with higher miles) more expensively than that for newer cars. These defects where not existing when I bought the car. For example, it only in the last few weeks that it started loosing coolant. The vehicle has been serviced by Audi main dealer since new and has interim inspections prior to these faults being identified. These faults were confirmed by a franchised, Audi service centre since it's last inspection (which was only a few months prior).

A few wrong assumptions there... I have met ALL of my obligations in relation to mileage and servicing at a franchised (main) dealer. It was the franchised dealer who did all the diagnostics on the faults. The dealer is very supportive but the warranty provider rejected the claim and so far, provide no reason. I took the car to an approved dealer. They are obliged to ask for prior authorisation but that authorisation was not granted. So I am where I am now. The car is a 2012 model A6. I have not had the repairs carried out yet but I plan to do so and recover my costs. You say that VAG may go for cost recovery (if they win). Is there any limit to the costs they could recover? Is their a cap? Reading the warranty document I think my VAG warranty is provided by a company called Lawshield (UK) Limited. Hence I think my contract is not with VAG and I would not therefore be taking action against any entity who I do not have a contract with.

I have written a letter of complaint. The policy states they will confirm receipt of my complaint within 5 days. But no such confirmation or acknowledgement has been received. I reasonably conclude they do not wish to deal with my complaint. Hence I will need to do a LBA. What statutes or parts of the law are relevant here?

When reading the "who provides your policy" page of the policy document, they list as many legal entities as possible. Presumably to make it as confusing as possible? But I assume it would be Lawshield (UK) Limited who I have my contract with: Audi Financial Services is a trading name of Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited, registered in England number: 2835230 (registered office: Brunswick Court, Yeomans Drive, Blakelands, Milton Keynes MK14 5LR). Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Audi Extended Warranty Cover from Audi Financial Services is sold and administered by Lawshield (UK) Limited, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Audi Extended Warranty Cover is underwritten by Volkswagen Versicherung AG, acting through its French branch registered in Pontoise number: 529212912 (registered office: 15 Avenue de la Demi Lune, Batiment Ellipse, 95700, Roissy en France). Volkswagen Versicherung AG is authorised and regulated by the German Finance Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, located at Graurheindorfer Str. 108, 53117 Bonn, Germany) and subject to limited regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority in respect of underwriting insurance business in the UK (register number: 621892). Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited and Volkswagen Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft are part of the same corporate group. Lawshield (UK) Limited are not part of the same corporate group. Audi Financial Services is a trading name of Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited, registered in England number: 2835230 (registered office: Brunswick Court,Yeomans Drive, Blakelands, Milton Keynes MK14 5LR). Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Audi Extended Warranty Cover from Audi Financial Services is sold and administered by Lawshield (UK) Limited, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Audi Extended Warranty Cover is underwritten by Volkswagen Versicherung AG, acting through its French branch registered in Pontoise number: 529212912 (registered office: 15 Avenue de la Demi Lune, Batiment Ellipse, 95700, Roissy en France). Volkswagen Versicherung AG is authorised and regulated by the German Finance Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, located at raurheindorfer Str. 108, 53117 Bonn, Germany) and subject to limited regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority in respect of underwriting insurance business in the UK (register number: 621892). Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited and Volkswagen Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft are part of the same corporate group. Lawshield (UK) Limited are not part of the same corporate group.

I bought a 12 mth warranty for over £2k from Audi 11 months ago. It was an expensive warranty but it had no excess and covered everything except service items such as tyres and brake pads etc.. I should say that I have had good experience with this same warranty product in the past; with a prior car purchase. The price also reflected the age and mileage of my vehicle. They quote newer, low mileage cars more cheaply than older, higher mileage cars... now 11 months down the line (I have met all the conditions of the policy on my side) I make a claim for a leaking rocker cover gasket on the engine, leaking drive shaft seals and a leaking water pump. All parts are expressly covered by the policy. the claim is rejected apparently because "wear and tear is the cause of failure". they knew the age and miles on my car and they quoted accordingly. If age and mileage was not a factor, (more wear and more tear) then why vary the price of their policies according to age and mileage? They knew and accepted the age and mileage of my vehicle when they sold me the policy and they priced it accordingly. In theory, no part would fail without use (wear and tear); then effectively no parts are covered by this policy? I have entered a formal complaint which they state they will respond within 5 days. I have insisted they fund the repairs but I am also agreeable for them to fully refund the £2k+ I paid for the policy. I await their reply. I expect to have to make a small claim. Great if anyone can paste a link to a similar case where there was a successful outcome in the small claims court.

Update: The book time on this job is nine hours and I can't find a used 7 speed S-Tronic gearbox anywhere for less than £1k. But regardless; the finance company have paid a credit of £10.5k which is the cost of the repair as quoted by the Audi main dealer. So it worked out in the end

Car is a 2012 (C7) model registered late in 2011. 92k miles on this car and it had a gear oil and filter service at 89k by Audi main dealer. I always get gearbox services periodically (and if I do not see one previously in the service history when I buy a car). My local ZF specialist recommends to service them every 38k but that sounds a bit over zealous to me considering some used to claim the boxes are "sealed for life". 60k feels about right and has served me well on my other car with a ZF box @146k miles so far and still feels like new...

Refund is anyway my preferred option. That price is Audi main dealer "retail" price. I agree cheaper options would be possible. Like a used or reconditioned unit for example..

Dearer has now received my letter. They came back to me with 3 perfectly reasonable questions to establish further insight and details. They understand my request and will come back to me... I give them to the middle of next week and then follow up with a call. Meanwhile, the credit card company have also received my written letter of intent to pursue a section 75 claim.

Update: Spoke to the credit card provider today who said that at this stage it was not possible to open a section 75 claim but they would put the transaction "into dispute". Someone else would call me to discuss this dispute and at that stage I could discuss a section 75 claim. My concern there is that section 75 covers the whole purchase cost; whereas the transaction that is now in dispute is only around 50% of the purchase price.. Next step, to speak to the dealer once I see they have signed for and received the letter. They are anyway aware of the issue. I sent them pictures and email of my car broken down on the motorway 3 hours after collection. I have been keeping them informed with polite emails so far. The letter is the first clarification of how I would like them to remedy my issues.

Thanks your comments... The dealer should get the letter tomorrow. I will take your advice to call and speak with him to try to reach an amicable solution. It is just business, things happen - I am annoyed but I don't take it personally. I did not mention section 75 refund to the dealer so far. First, I try to seek a refund from the dealer directly. A Section 75 claim is "plan B". My view was that if after 14 days I do not have my refund, then I progress a section 75 claim. I am even happy to return the car to the dealer at my own expense - but since it does not drive, it would need to be recovered there. The cost of recovery is negligible compared to what I have paid so far. I think I would accept a repair but a repair done by an appointed repairer of my choice . Otherwise, a full refund is my preferred remedy.

I collected a used car 10 days ago. I did not even make it home from the dealer! I had to be recovered from the roadside due to breakdown (no gear selection or drive possible on S-Tronic gearbox). Car went into main dealer who subsequently diagnosed gearbox failure due to a previously incorrectly fitted gear oil cap that resulted in loss of fluid and then catastrophic failure of the gearbox. £10.5k is quoted for the repair. (gearbox had been recently serviced prior to sale by a main dealer). I am not able to use the car until it is repaired. So my response yesterday (well within 30 days) was to write to the dealer requesting a full refund. Sent via recorded delivery and I will follow with an email once I see the letter is signed for. In that letter I state that the car is unroadworthy, not of satisfactory quality and is unfit for purpose. I state that The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires dealers to supply goods of satisfactory quality. Since I paid over 50% of the cost with a credit card. I also notify the credit card company of the issue and ask that they send me a section 75 claim form in case the dealer does not respond positively to my request within 14 days. My intention is to pursue a section 75 claim if the dealer does not respond positively to my request for a refund. I am curious to understand if I should physically return the car to the dealer at this stage or if I wait for the dealers response? Thanks in advance for any thoughts or suggestions others may have as to the steps I am planning…

Yes, quite common issue with delivery... The issue is that the consignor is understandably not fully aware that they are signing for the delivery "in good condition". Clearly your parcel was not delivered in good condition. Funnily enough the average person does not study the T&C's of the carrier before accepting delivery.

I am pursuing a claim for around a total of £1600 which is made up of ERP, late payment and returned direct debit fees and also interest. Assuming this is allocated to the small claims track; is there any risk that I could incur costs (win-loose or draw)? Just as the defendant can settle just before the hearing. Can the claimant withdraw on the day of the hearing? If yes can the claimant be held liable for any of the defendants costs?

I had a contract with hitachi capital consumer fiance. Their documents show they are a division of hitachi capital (uk) PLC. I can't find hitachi capital consumer fiance in companies house. I don't want to sue a legal entity that no longer exists. Since hitachi capital (uk) PLC does still exist as a live legal entity - do I sue them?

I am at a relatively advanced stage with GE Money (previously I Group). They took around 37 days (out of a possible 40) to reply to the data protection request. They then sent back all court documents back to the court with a compliments slip "sorry can't find account". I proceeded (winning by default) and then sent a baliff to collect. They have now applied to the court to have the judgements "set aside" on the basis that they had not received neither the claim, the judement or the warrent from the court! If they did not receive it how then can they attatch their official compliments slips to the court documents and return them? Hopefully the court will see their claim of not having received any of their documents (sent to the correct address) is unfounded. They have appointed a solicitor to act on their behalf. Any thoughts on where this will go from here? I am prepared to pursue this through court and enlist proffesional representation if needed. I no longer lend from GE and hope that I never do again.

I've sent my data access request (using the standard template) and HBOS have replied with the bulk of the data I need. However, in their letter dated 11th July 2006 they say "With regard to your request for information relating to manual intervention on your account, HBOS Plc is under no statutory obligation to record this information and therefore, I am unable to assist further with your request." Is this correct? I am thinking that maybe they plan to claim at a later stage that their manual intervention was significant and therefore their costs were justified and reflective of their time and actions? Regardless, I'm planning to proceed with a preliminary request for repayment.