Brolink work ethics

1. I was informed by the approved repairer on 25 November that a "second-hand rear bumper was authorised for my vehicle and that they are currently seeing if their local suppliers can assist with either a good used part or an alternative part."

2. I requested (per email attached) the assessor to contact me since I am not satisfied with the authorisation.

3. I then attempted to contact the assessor, Mr Strydom, yesterday telephonically since no reply was received.

4. I had to phone five times since the line was cut every time the call was forwarded.

5. An explanation was finally issued by a colleague of Mr Strydom that an OEM part would only be authorised if the vehicle was still under warranty.

6. I am frustrated by a few factors:

The work ethics from Brolink. Their service is surely questionable! I have still not received a reply from Mr Strydom even after his colleague "inboxed" him. It is comfortable to put our blinkers on and issue an instruction to repair an out of warranty vehicle with second-hand or maybe even pirate parts. The vehicle is out of warranty only by a few months! Surely, there were other options available to the assessor and the approved repairer. The assessor also could have informed the client BEFORE a repair is authorised by him. Decent work ethics determines that a reasonable person will communicate any changes to quote directly affecting the owner. It is not expected that a relationship should be established - only an (one) email was received from Brolink. I am therefore not authorising nor am I comfortable with Brolink.

Any excuse will also not be entertained.

PS: It is becoming the norm in SA that agreements are pushed down the consumer's throat. During the past 21 years, I have only appointed one contractor that did not cause problems.