Bridge of Contract./ ********* behaviour

<p>It pains me to write another review about this company. However I feel the public should have a well rounded view of a company before they decide to enter it a contract. My husband at the beginning of the year switched to Budget because their rates was more competitive in terms of our present budget as I stopped working. Part of the contract with Budget was a maintenance service plan for our Nissan x trailers dcsi. Parties agreed on a monthly instalment and the number of services covered. To confirm the contract an electronic copy was forwarded to my husband confirming the terms and agreement for the service of Vehile. The contract clearly described the vehicle as X trailer DC I ( Diesel). As service of a diesel vehile is apparently more,he questioned the consultant on the quote as to correctness of premium of cover. He was assured that the quote was correct and signed a monthly debit order for agreed instalment. This two weeks my husband made arrangements for vehicle to be serviced. He got the green light from budget to proceed. My husband took leave to attend to the service. He took car into dealership yesterday morning . Mid-afternoon he recieved a call from the d ealrship informing he that budget declined payment because the service plan they had vehile registered under was for petrol vehicle and not diesel. Despite the dealership, who also had a copy of the contracts reference to the term DCSI. they remained stedfast in their desicion not to pay. After serval call to Budget my husband was informed that despite terms of agreement for service of a diesel vehicle the person who loaded information on their system recorded it as petrol. Really???. For said reason they are not paying because service cost is less then what is being demanded. My husband was told that they will authorise payment if he payed in the shortfall in terms of the contract. It appears that one can now unilaterally amend terms of agreement. My husband refused and demanded that they solve problem by no later then Tuesday. The matter apparently was send to manigement for review. Really. The vehicle was returned without being serviced and we are putting millage on it. Really guyes Vacarous liability for action of employees. Y are in mora, bridge. Y need to perform. Again Compliance department why are y not identifying the risk of employment training. Y are going to cost company a fork load in terms of penalties. I'm happy to render legal advise and training because this manner of doing business is unexcetable. Second strike on y part ito service delivery to us in less than a year. </p>