ComplaintsforDiscount ESP

• Initial Complaint

  07/30/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Discount ESP contract was cancelled on 3 June 2024. *********** has not refunded within 45 days of cancellation, my contract cost of $1000.00, minus a $50.00 cancellation fee. I have contacted several people at Discount ESP/Autrela about refund and was told my refund was being processed the week of 24 July 2024, by ********. ****************. *********** is a scam and does not honor the contracts for an extended service warranty. The penalty for refunds not received within 45 days is an additional ten percent every thirty days payment has not been made. This company rips people off by selling warranties they will not honor when damage occurs to your motorcycle. Would not reccomend to anyone. Beware of this company!!!!

  Business response

  07/30/2024

  We are sorry for any inconvenience or perceived delays in the processing of your cancellation and refund. I would like to address some of the derogatory comments made by the client in their complaint. ******************** has been informed that we are a broker for multiple different administrators and for various different products. We have no involvement in the processing of his claim. That being said, the company that was the administrator of ************************ policy, USWC, has been in business over 40 years and is an A+ accredited business with the BBB. I am not privy to their claim details, but I am confident the client's claims were denied on legitimate grounds and in accordance with their contract. I only mention this to refute the client's unfounded defamatory statements that we are a "scam" and that we "rip people off".   

  I am happy to report that the client's refund, with the 10% penalty, has been processed as of 07/24/24 and is scheduled for delivery 07/31/24-08/02/2024. I have attached a screenshot to confirm these payment details. At this time, we can only wait until confirmation of the check delivery within the next 2-3 business days. It is worth mentioning the total dollar amount reported by the client was inaccurate and does not take into consideration the pro-rated cancellation terms of his contract with the administrator. We feel we have acted in good faith in all of our interactions with the client and have taken every step to fulfill our obligations in this matter.

• Initial Complaint

  05/27/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Cancelled my contract 3/27/24 was told it will take 4 weeks to get refund untill today 05/27/24 I have not received my refund I called them many times and they keep telling me that I'll get it that week I called on but still no refund

  Business response

  06/07/2024

  Hello,

  Our apologizes for any inconvenience or delay in this matter. We try to convey that refunds typically ***********-8 weeks but can take slightly longer based on multiple factors. I am happy to report our records indicate the client received their refund as an ACH payment directly to their bank account on or before 6/5/24 at 8pm. We have provided confirmation of this deposit in the form of a screenshot. As this payment has been processed and delivered, we feel we have fulfilled our obligation and consider this matter closed.

   

  Best regards,

   

  *********************

  Discount ESP

• Initial Complaint

  05/08/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Purchased motorcycle 01/22 with cornerstone extended warranty,2 years unlimited miles, paid $2600. I came across discount ESP on ******* in Dec 22, offering 5 yearls unlimited miles $1800 better coverage. I spoke to their rep ***** who convinced their product has longer and better coverage. I called the *** dealers around me to make sure i am making a good decision, they all said the company is notorious for playing games and declining legitimate claims. I told *****, I will not proceed with them due to their horrible reputation with the dealers. He asked me for some time to research it, called me back and said they work with a dealer 70 miles away from me which also has a harley ******* Discount ESP speciality. I called the ******* they confirmed they work with ESP. 3 and half months and 800 miles later, my bike broke down on the freeway. I took it to the only dealer they originally recommended, they declined the claim after receiving the work order, using pre-existing condition as an excuse like the other dealers warned me about. I had to pay to take the bike to the ******* pay to get the bike out of the dealer and ride an unsafe bike 70 miles to get it home. I was incredibly upset and felt taken advantage of by this dishonest company. I Went back and forth with ***** and **** in claims for a month or so, sent them proof of purchase of the bike and the previous warranty showing i did not have a pre-existing issue. ***** then said he will work with me. he wanted a 2 opinion, he ended up sending me back to the original dealer since no dealer wanted to work with him. Spent money to take it back again and to take the it apart per *****'s request. They turned it down again and left me holding the bag of getting the bike in 1 piece and getting it home. After hours of talking to them, they prooved to me that no matter what proof I showed them, they have to declined.the claim because it expensive to fix. I showed them tremendous flexibility, they showed me none.

  Business response

  05/15/2023

  05/15/2023

  RE: Complaint ID: ********

  Dear Sir or Ma'am,

  Thank you for forwarding the complaint filed on 05/08/2023 by our former contract holder. 

  On 03/16/23 we received a new claim submission for the contract holder's motorcycle. The estimate presented by the repair facility indicated there were four separate customer concerns totaling $13,157.57. A claim of this magnitude meets our requirements for an independent inspection to be performed. Upon receipt of the inspection report on 03/22/23, it was determined that the issues presented either could not be verified, or if verified, were determined to be pre-existing in nature as the contract had only been active for 285 miles and 40 days. With the lack of time and mileage from the contract inception, it is reasonable to deduce these items were pre-existing. 

  In subsequent conversations with the contract holder after the denial of their claim, they provided further insights into the situation. These consisted of the fact that the customer had an active contract prior to his policy with us, the contract holder stated that they were not aware of nor had requested portions of the claim to be submitted for repair, and that the failures in question rendered the vehicle inoperable. Their assertion was that because the vehicle could not be operated due to these failures, there was no way the two main concerns, the transmission failure and the rear shock failure could be of a pre-existing nature. Based on these details and our dedication to go above and beyond to find a way to say yes to our clients, we reopened this claim for review. 

  The review of the contract holder's claim was contingent on them getting the vehicle to a qualified repair facility for a proper diagnosis of the transmission failure. As long as the failure was as the contract holder had represented, a sudden failure that had rendered the vehicle unrideable, we should be able to overturn our initial decision. The contract holder agreed to have the vehicle towed back to the repair facility for tear down and identification of the failure. 

  We received the second claim submission on 04/27/23. As is protocol with any major powertrain failure, we again dispatched an independent inspector to review the failed components. Upon the performance of the inspection on 05/02/23, the inspector determined that the transmission concerns were due to normal wear consistent with time and mileage, and short of some worn components, no other failures were identified. It was also noted at the time of inspection that the contract holder had accrued 68 miles on the vehicle since the first inspection. This was contrary to the contract holder's assertion that the vehicle was unrideable and that they were forced to tow the vehicle. 

  It was our determination that the contract holder had intentionally provided us false and misleading information in an effort to deceive us and to render a decision in their favor. As the contract holder mis-represented the condition of the vehicle and falsely asserted the vehicle could not be ridden, we not only denied any coverage of the contract holder's concerns, we also denied their application for coverage based on misrepresentation. The contract holder was issued a full refund as well.

  Our company takes pride in the effort we make to do right by our customers. Honestly, we never want to say No. This is evident in the hundreds of reviews we have from our satisfied customers and repair facilities alike. This holds true in this situation as well. Based on the contract entered into by the customer, we had every right to stand by our initial claim denial. It was only due to our strong adherence to customer ********************** that we decided to give the contract holder the opportunity to have the claim re-opened and re-considered for coverage. Only when the facts surrounding the failure and overall vehicle condition were found to contradict the contract holder's assertions did we have to make the tough decision to terminate their application for coverage. We feel we have acted in good faith and within the terms of our contract in all dealings with the contract holder.

   

  Best regards,

  The DiscountESP Team

   

   

   

   

  Customer response

  05/15/2023

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear .

  I have had their warranty for well over 90 days they said 40 days and well over 800 miles before my suspension and transmission 5th gear went out they said in their reply 240 miles. I can prove that easily. They are misrepresenting the facts so blatantly again. They site their reviews as proof of good faith and customer **********************, I checked and noticed that their reviews appear to be fake, plus  6 local *** dealers refuse to work with them due to they deceptive tactics. So much for great customer **********************, now the ******** dealership they sent me to, they added them to the black list. I had a warranty before I purchased their deceptive warranty and provided proof to them. I spent well over $1700 for cost of tear down and taking the bike back and forth to the dealership they recommended. After they declined my first claim, I had to drive for 3 hours on a Saturday to take my bike back from the dealership, since Saturday is the only day I could go after work. I get there around dealership closing time. I called multiple towing companies to pick the bike up, the soonest I could get one to get to ******** was 4 hours. It was very cold and and would be sitting in unsafe place for the whole time. At that point, I tried to ride the bike as slowly and as safely as I could to get home. 68 miles away from the dealer exactly! It was terrifying and nerve recking. I was also getting quotes for $700 to tow the bike. I could not afford to tow it for that cost anyway at that time. Disountesp put me between a rock and hard place, then turn around to use it against me. They accuse people of being dishonest while they are doing some serious projecting. My transmission 5th gear failed suddenly as I was ridding on the 5 freeway where you can no longer shift up to 5th gear, my suspension airbag Lost its fluid when the bike was parked. Everything that brakes in any type of vehicle could be  easily attributed to age, wear and tear and mileage. That is such a slick way to decline all kinds of claims, very lucrative business and easy way to get out of paying for claims. They sold me a warranty on a bike that is older and had mileage. They use that as justification not to pay for a legitimate claim. They know for a fact, you cannot drive 800 plus miles on a busted suspension and transmission, knowing that I had an existing warranty for well over a year before I purchased they garbage warranty. I asked ***** to cancel my warranty and issue a full refund if they are declining my claim. They are acting like I am in the wrong and did it because they found out am trying to deceive them. I cannot believe the nerve these people have in acting like they are dealing in good faith! I will be making a ******* video where I dial all the local dealers to show them the real responses form actual dealers about their experience with this so-called warranty.

  
  Regards,
  
  ***************************

  Business response

  05/19/2023

  05/19/2023

  
  RE: Complaint ID: ********

  Dear Sir or Maam,
  
  This most recent response from our former client makes many assertions. I will try to weave through the conjecture and address the facts of the matter as they exist. **************** entered into his contract agreement with Discount ESP on December 4th 2022. His vehicle had ****** miles at the time of enrollment. As we sell our policies sight unseen, we do require a 60 day time period to pass, and for the client to accrue 500 or more miles before their coverage is active. So, yes the client did purchase his policy 103 days prior to the reported failure and had accrued 785 miles from the time of enrollment, but his contract had only been active for the prior 285 miles and 43 days.
  
  Upon receipt of the repair estimate from the service facility on March 17th 2023, it was noted that there were four concerns reported, consisting of all of the internal transmission components, the rear shock absorber, a clutch safety switch, and six ignition coils and spark plugs. These requested repairs totaled $13,157.57.As is our protocol with any claim of this magnitude, we require an independent inspection to be performed. Upon inspection, the transmission failure could not be verified,and no failed components had been identified. The rear shock leak showed evidence of a prolonged leak that had been ongoing, the clutch switch failure was also not able to be verified, and there were trouble codes indicating a failure of ignition coil #2 only.
  
  It was our determination at this point that we could not approve any portion of this claim and a denial was issued. The transmission and clutch switch failures could not be verified, the shock absorber had clearly been leaking for some time, and the single ignition coil failure was deemed to be pre-existing. Furthermore, it is beyond any mechanical reasonability that there could be multiple, in this case at least four, major mechanical or electrical failures that occur in the 285 mile window in which the clients coverage was active.
  
  In my conversations with the client after his claim denial, these facts were clearly articulated. He made the argument to me that he was unaware of the reported failure of the coils,and this was done independently by the repair facility. The client initially tried to bargain with us for a partial cash payout directly to him to address the shock. He was willing to settle for that, stating he would address the additional concerns on his own. This was not something that we could agree to,as is the case with any coverage of this type, we cannot pay a client to do their own diagnosis or repair. Not to mention, the shock failure was determined to be pre-existing.  
  
  The client was given two options at this point; 1) If he was dissatisfied with our determination and his coverage, we would cancel his plan and issue a full refund of all premiums. 2)If the client was to correct the current failure(s) our coverage would be in effect for any future occurrences. After further dialogue with the client, a third option was given to take his vehicle to any repair facility of his choosing for further diagnosis and confirmation of the transmission and clutch switch failures as we still did not have a verified failure of either.
  
  Upon notification of a verified failure, we would re-open his denied claim for review. This third option was only offered after the client asserted that the transmission failure was abrupt and had rendered the vehicle inoperable. For that reason, he asserted this could not be of a pre-existing nature. It was also made clear to the client that there was no guarantee of a reversal of the denied claim, but if new information was presented that aligned with the clients assertion that these failures were abrupt and rendered the vehicle inoperable there was a likelihood coverage could be provided. To be clear, we had no obligation to re-open this claim,but as we do with all our clients, we want to do everything we can to find a way to say yes.
  
  The client did express frustration with having to tow the vehicle back and forth to and from the dealer, even sharing the $700 cost he was going to have to incur to do so. Although we empathized with the client, these were all factors outside of our control. The fact that the client did not have the vehicle towed as was his assertion, and that the vehicle was indeed still operable, both contradicted the previous representations made by the client.
  
  To add to this, upon verification of the transmission failure, the only issue re-submitted for review, it was clear and obvious to the independent inspector and our internal review team that the transmission failure was one of normal wear due to time and mileage and not an abrupt failure. It was also clear from the wear present that this issue would have caused an intermittent shifting issue that would have been evident to the rider for many miles prior to the state it was in when disassembled.
  
  The fact that the client operated this vehicle for 68 miles after the initial inspection, and after asserting the vehicle was inoperable and had to be towed from location to location contradicts the previous statements made by the client. This also exacerbated the failure as the client did not demonstrate caution in preventing further damage when a known issue was present. It is our belief that the statements made previously by the client, that the vehicle was inoperable and that they were towing the vehicle when this was not the case, were made deliberately to deceive us and influence a decision in their favor.
  
  Due to the indisputable fact that the client made false representations about the vehicles condition and their actions surrounding this case, we had no choice but to terminate their policy. As is the situation in all our interactions with our clients, we have been fair, honest, and up-front in all our dealings with this client. Unfortunately,the client has not reciprocated the same courtesy. This is continually evident in the patently false and disparaging aspersions the client continues to cast upon our company.
  
  Considering the overwhelming evidence of deception on the clients part, and the fact that the clients coverage has been terminated and a full refund has been issued 05/05/2023, accepted and deposited 05/09/2023, we feel we have addressed this issue sufficiently and would consider this matter closed.  

   

  Best regards,

  The Discount ESP Team

• Initial Complaint

  06/01/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Bought motorcycle extended service plan on June 27 2019 ($1498). Cancelled the plan on February 27 2022. It appears that I am entitled to a refund of approximately $449.00. After many multiple attempts, I still have not received my refund. It appears to me that Discount ESP and and a company by the name of First Extended and Assurant Client Services are pointing fingers at each other. When I called Assurant they referred me back to Discount ESP indicating they are the ones that need to process the payment. My contact at Discount ESP is *********************** at ************.

  Business response

  06/02/2022

  As DiscountESP was simply a broker for the First Extended plan purchased by the customer, this matter is between the customer and First ********************** Corp. ********************** has no role or responsibility to provide a refund in this matter and the customer was made aware of this on multiple occasions. That being said, in the interest of customer **********************, we made multiple attempts to assist the customer in procuring his refund, without obligation to do so. The customer received a call at approximately ******* cst 6/1/22 from our administrator ******* notifying him the check was mailed from First Extended Corp. on 5/4/22. Subsequently, on 6/2/22, we received verification from the customer that they did indeed receive their refund in question. It is our belief that we have done everything in our power to assist in this matter, going above and beyond our obligation, and do not feel this complaint against our company is warranted. 

  Customer response

  06/09/2022

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  
  Received a call from a ****** Kork and all he wanted to do is deflect and blame everything else on someone else-me. Simply put, all he had to do was say I am sorry this happened and that would have been the end of it. But he just couldnt bring himself to that. Why this company has someone like him with his limited customer skills address these issues is amazing to me. Its true, I finally received my refund. However, please do not make the same mistake I made by doing business with these people.
  
  Regards,
  
  *************************

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩