Royal Administration Services

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issueOur records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Peoples Vehicle Protection Classic coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 3/29/As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractRoyal does not now nor has in the past been a seller of any Vehicle Service ContractsAs such, we cannot comment on any communication which occurred between the Complainant and the VendorThe Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditionsThe Contract is “part specific” in that it covers only those components/parts listed under the section titled WHAT IS COVERED that require repair or replacement due to a mechanical failureIf the part/component is not listed or if the cause of the failure is determined to be excluded, coverage cannot be providedA review of the Complainant’s file shows that there have been no claims approvedOur office has been contacted with regard to repairs needed on four (4) occasionsThe first occurred on or about 5/16/when the rear wiper motor failed, a review of the coverage found the “rear” wiper motor was not a listed partOn the second occasion, on or about 7/7/a claim was initiated for engine noiseThe Complainant’s selected repair facility stated the timing chain needed to be replacedUpon completion of the adjudication process, which included an inspection by an independent third party, no failure was demonstrated and noise alone is not a failure thus the claim was deniedOn 7/3/a call was received from a repair facility inquiring as to coverage for the front axle and the upper ball jointsThe caller was advised the axles are listed for coverage but the ball joints are not listedThe caller then asked about the upper control arms at which time he was advised there is no suspension coverage for this ContractAlthough it was confirmed the axles were listed the repair facility did not initiate a claim at that time stating he would call the following Monday to do soNo call was receivedOn 9/14/our office again received a call from the repair facility on behalf of the ComplainantThe representative asked about suspension coverage and specifically inquired as to coverage for the upper and lower ball joints, as wells as, the CV axleHe was advised that the Contract purchased by the Complainant does not cover suspension therefore the ball joints are not coveredThere was discussion about the CV axle as which time the repair facility was advised that if the “boots” that protect the axle from dirt, grease, grime, etcgetting in to the axle were torn or ripped then this would exclude the ccv axle coverageThe repair facility did not pursue a claimThe Complainant contacted our office on 9/16/During the course of the call, she referenced several parts that were being replaced by the repair facilityShe was advised of the fact that the Contract does not include any suspension coverage and others were not listed for coverageThe Complainant inquired as to how to cancel the Contract and stated she wanted her money backIt was explained that she would need to contact the VendorWhen attempting to locate a Supervisor to speak to the Complainant the call was “lost”There is no record of the Complainant calling again or of a request for a return callOn 9/25/our office contacted the Complainant to discuss the information provided hereThe Complainant restated her desire to cancel the ContractAt this time, Royal has received her written request which will be processed in accordance to the ContractThis includes contacting the Vendor as that company is responsible for a portion of the refund owed to the ComplainantIn the event, the Vendor refuses to participate in the Cancellation refund process, Royal will issue the portion of the refund for which our office is responsible directly to the ComplainantOur office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issueOur records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] dba [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 2/14/As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditionsOn 1/8/our office was contacted by a representative of [redacted] , the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”), who the vehicle’s transmission needed a new clutch packAs is standard practice in the event of a claim of this nature, an independent third party inspector was dispatched to verify the failure and determine the cause of sameThe result of the initial inspection confirmed an internal failure to the transmissionHowever, the cause of the failure could not be determined as the transmission had not been disassembled to the point where the failure was visible or determinableAs such, the RF and the Complainant were both advised of the need for the tear down of the transmissionOn 1/18/during the course of a telephone conversation with the Complainant it was stated the RF could remove the paddle clutch kit as this is what the RF believes to be the point of failureThe Adjuster later contacted the RF and unable to speak with the representative left a voicemail message advising the transmission coverage under the Contract is for internally lubricated partsIf, in fact, the dual clutch assembly is the failed component it is not internally lubricated and would not be covered Having not received any further communication from the RF, the claim was Administratively Closed on 1/19/In the event the disassembly of the transmission is completed, the claim will be reopened and a second inspector dispatchedIf the RF confirms the failure is the dual clutch assembly, no further action will be required.Our records show the Complainant contacted our office on 1/27/with regard to cancellation of the ContractIn accordance to the Contract, the Complainant was referred to the Vendor Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls and, examined the files at issue Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 3/30/at which time the mileage was reported as 102,As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditions Please be advised that Royal has been in direct contact with the ComplainantAs a result of that communication, we anticipate reaching an amiable agreement with regard to this matter Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law