The process is designed to prevent fraud by having an independent third-party auditing group examine all the paperwork submissions. In order to protect the integrity of this process, there is somewhat of a "Chinese wall" between the auditors and the claims managers.
There are many things that can cause the auditors to kick back a document, and it can be difficult to figure out what they need to get it passed.
In my case I ran into two of these things.
The first was the proof of ownership via registration. My tax office registration invoice document showed the registration as a line item with dollar amount charged, and was dated, but did not explicitly indicate that the registration was in force (no mention of effective date / expiration date). I suppose that this is because the registration manifests as a window sticker with the expiration date on it.
I ended up having the tax office produce a different version of the same document with a very clear statement of the registration period - effective date and expiration date. That was accepted.
The lesson here is that if the auditors kick something back, no amount of written explanations, yellow highlighter, circled figures etc. will make any difference. They know what they need and if they don't have it it does not get approved - you MUST figure out what they need to see.
The second was a request for proof of "acquisition of the vehicle". This took some sleuthing to figure out what they wanted and why. The auditors need to confirm a bill of sale, but rather than inconveniently requesting that, they are using a list of all the titled cars on or before 15-SEP-2015... which works in the overwhelming majority of claims as a perfectly good proxy for the bill of sale...
Unless you bought the car right before the stop sale date of 15-SEP-2015. These buyers did not get their cars titled until somewhat after that date (dealer tags), so they don't show on the list. Sending a copy of the dealer's bill of sale took care of that.
Now here is a funny thing - while still figuring out what the auditors really needed for the "proof of acquisition of vehicle", I had occasion to take the car in for some service and mentioned that I was trying to get my claim cleared to get part 1 of the fix and was hoping to get it approved by the time my next oil change was due (a few hundred more miles).
Surprisingly, the service writer said he could get approval immediately over the phone, called the claim number, gave dealer identification, they talked to me for a moment to verify my identity, and BAMM! Approved. No appointments, schedules, documents or any other stuff. Drove of in a loaner and returned to get my fixed (part 1) VW!
The lesson here is don't second guess the logic of the system...
Next time I went to the portal I see the "proof of vehicle acquisition" is still being required! I call and suggest that the fact I drove the car to the dealer, got approved for the fix, and the fix was done... on the car I brought to them and drove home in after, must logically satisfy that I really did take acquisition and maintain possession of the car.
Well, no; the auditors still needed proof of acquisition to approve my claim even though the object of the claim was to get clearance to schedule the fix - which is now already done! They even confirmed that the internal part of the portal shows that the fix part 1 on my car has been completed. I ended up speaking with a supervisor (very nice and helpful guy, Steve) that was able to determine that the problem was a "failure of title match to FICA"... which is the list of titles as of 15-SEP-2015... this was the second problem above... bill of sale fixed that.
I have faxed and has been accepted the long PDF with the signatures and notary seal. Kind of wondering if their next response will be to cut check or provide instructions for how to schedule to get the fix done.
I wondered if this whole claims process might have been easier if the auditors had made transparent exactly what credentials and specific details were needed to get approved... but I think that would have just been an easy path to fraud.