mis sold warranty

[gwr1234]

hi. i brought a year old car 2 years ago. with it i was asked if i wanted a 3 year gold covered warranty which i agreed to. now the other day i was reading through the warranty book and it says faults which occur during the period of guarantee of a manufacturer or supplier or items which are subject to a manufacturers recall. the car had a standard 3 year manufacturers warranty. in my eyes this means the extra warranty is void for 2 years till the manufactuers one ran out. does this mean i have been mis sold and they shouldnt even have offered me it.

 

Thanks for your help

[martin2006]

Your right that the manufacturers warranty should cover any faults for 3 years usually, i personally wouldnt have bought a warranty unless it specifically covers something that the manufacturers dont. Unlikely as that is. I would say you could well have a case but im no expert . If it were me i would be questioning it and maybe claiming it was mis-sold.

 

Good luck and keep us informed.

[Guest Bert52]

I'd say you have no chance.

 

Something was offered to you and you agreed to it and signed a contract.

 

And this was, as you state, two years ago.

 

Believe it or not, even if you hadn't read the T&C at the time, this is still no excuse later on.

[jonni2bad]

I'd say you have no chance.

 

Something was offered to you and you agreed to it and signed a contract.

 

And this was, as you state, two years ago.

 

Believe it or not, even if you hadn't read the T&C at the time, this is still no excuse later on.

 

My bank account was offered to me, I agreed to the conditions and signed up.

 

I didn't read the terms and conditions.

 

This was years ago.

 

Should I give up on claiming?

 

gwr - as Martin suggests, if the policy you were sold did not offer anything different to the manufacturers warranty, then you appear to have every right to challenge this as a mis-sold policy.

 

Terms and conditions of it are irrelevant for this purpose.

 

The two year gap is also completely irrelevant.

 

[buzby]

Er no. The warranty was an insurance policy - and this would have paid up if the manufacturer went out of business. So stating that the manufacturer would have covered the repairs isn't stating the obvious. I actually claimed in these circumstances - my care was a Daewoo and the claim was settled before Chrysler took them over.

[rosiecotton]

No, this isn't mis-selling. You would have had a chance to see what you were signing up for, and once you have signed unfortunately that is then binding.

 

Only if they have actually lied to you about what will be covered would you have a claim.

[gwr1234]

thanks for all your replys. I just think that it was mis sold. what was the point of getting the extra warranty if I couldn't claim for a year and a half. I wasn't told about this. its just like ppi. instead of selling it to ppl that are unemployedand them claiming it back. I was sold something I wasn't eligible for. what will my next step be.

 

gareth

[Guest Bert52]

My bank account was offered to me, I agreed to the conditions and signed up.

 

I didn't read the terms and conditions.

 

This was years ago.

 

Should I give up on claiming?

 

gwr - as Martin suggests, if the policy you were sold did not offer anything different to the manufacturers warranty, then you appear to have every right to challenge this as a mis-sold policy.

 

Terms and conditions of it are irrelevant for this purpose.

 

The two year gap is also completely irrelevant.

 

 

Completely different.

 

Claims against banks are not being contested-that hardly makes you right as no legal ruling has been established.

 

When you enter into a contract it becomes binding even if you don't read the T&C of the contract.

 

Your bank's T&C are binding too-the issue with bank charges is are they too high? And not with the question that there are bank charges within the T&C.

 

It appears the OP hasn't even claimed on his extended warranty so how do you, or he, know that it wouldn't perform? Or that the extended warranty wouldn't offer what the manufacturer's warranty may not have?

 

Therefore, there is no mis-selling, T&C are all important within a contract and the two years is relevant as it is a long way past the 14 days cooling off period where he could have ended the agreement.

 

I repeat, the OP would have no chance.

[gwr1234]

when i brought it i trusted the seller, he said if any of the things you are covered for go wrong you will be covered, now if i had phoned up 6 months later and said excuse me my head gasket has blown, i would have been told your not covered as it is still under warranty with vauxhall. like it says in the small print. i dont have time to read the small print as you "trust" the seller isnt going to sell you something, a you dont need, b u are not eligable and cant use. therefore i shouldnt even have be sold it. yes i should have picked it up earlier but thats not the point, the point is i shouldnt have been sold this if i cant use it, when im paying for a service you expect you would be able to use all of it, not half.

[buzby]

Not the point you were making, but from memory these after-market warranties (which make the seller A LOT of commission) don't cover head gaskets....