In September 2009 I purchased a new car and also purchased an extended service plan for 5 years or 75 000kms whichever occurs first. The car has only done 28000kms and is now due for its 4th annual service. According to the manufacturer the cam belt must be replaced every 4 years of 90 000kms whichever occurs first. The cam belt is a service item. Liquid Capital refuse the replace the cam belt because the car has not done 90 000kms conveniently ignoring the fact that 4 years have occurred first. No amount of convincing will make them see that they are in blatant breach of their contract.
There should be a law prohibiting extended service plans and I am surprised that Liquid Capital stays in business as their behaviour is simply unacceptable. They appear to be labouring under a misapprehension that the amount does not justify litigation. Boy have I got news for them .
Dont bother with the Ombudsman, heaven alone now what his role in the industry is.