Disappointed, Ignored, and Treated Unfairly by Budget Insurance

I am writing to express my deep dissatisfaction with the manner in which Budget Insurance has handled my claim following an accident I was involved in on the 18th of June 2025. Initially I was impressed by the swift response at the accident scene. Following this I submitted a claim for repairs and after an assessment the claim was approved and my vehicle was sent to a service provider appointed by Budget Insurance. Upon reviewing the service provider's public reviews, I became concerned about their reputation. I subsequently requested the repair quotation and discovered that the planned repairs involved the use of non-OEM parts, secondhand parts, and a questionable side panel replacement involving a cut-and-join repair.

I raised my concerns via email to the claim’s consultants regarding: • The use of non-OEM and second-hand parts. • The nature of the side panel repair method (cut-and-join). • The impact on the vehicle's manufacturer motor plan.

Rather than providing direct answers I was merely told that the repairs come with a lifetime guarantee. No effort was made to address the specific concerns about the type of repairs or how they would affect the manufacturer’s warranty. Repeated requests for the repair methodology were ignored.

Due to these unresolved concerns I escalated the matter to Budget Insurance’s Complaints Department formally requesting that the vehicle be moved to an Audi-approved dealer for assessment and repairs. I also requested the claims consultants to instruct the service provider to halt any work on the vehicle while the dispute was being reviewed.

I received an acknowledgment from the Internal Dispute Resolution consultant confirming the complaint and stating that the matter would be resolved within 15 working days with feedback promised by 23 July 2025. On 10 July 2025 I received a follow-up email reassuring me the matter was under review however no updates, documents, or additional information were requested or provided thereafter. Meanwhile the originally appointed service provider continued calling me to say parts had arrived. When I visited the workshop I found my vehicle had been stripped clearly indicating that work had already commenced despite my formal instruction to the contrary.

I again contacted the Internal Dispute Resolution consultant who insisted no work had been done and requested that I share warranty documents. I then sent a letter from Audi South Africa along with service history and images of the stripped vehicle proving that the vehicle had only ever been maintained at Audi-approved dealerships and showing that the service provider had clearly begun with the works. I was again reassured that senior management was reviewing the matter and that I would receive final feedback by 23 July 2025.

On 23 July 2025 I followed up and was assured I’d receive final feedback by close of business. Instead, I got an email the following morning saying that upper management was still reviewing. This delay and lack of transparency continued to raise concerns especially since my car was already stripped.

Eventually on 28 July 2025 during a telecom I was told that the final decision was to pay out an amount for me to take the vehicle to an Audi-approved dealer. I immediately questioned this amount as the original quotation using second-hand, non-OEM parts and the repair method that is being questioned was higher. How could a quote using OEM parts be cheaper? I then requested a written confirmation of the feedback, the second assessment quotation, and the repair methodology document that was used to get to the final decision. Instead I received a cropped screenshot of an automated pricing response quotation missing totals, labour and paint work components, and was told that no methodology would be shared but I would be contacted by an assessor — ironically the same service provider I initially disputed despite the ruling quotation being from a different service provider.

On 29 July 2025 I called to ask how they were calculating only on parts and who would be liable for any costs exceeding their payout. I requested a PDF document of the quotation that’s also inclusive of labour and paint materials. I made a follow-up call in the afternoon only to be told that the final amount had now changed, now inclusive of labour and paint, and was just slightly over the first quotation — which had been based on second-hand and non-OEM parts. Again I requested a full quotation, latest assessment images, repair methodology and voice recordings of the feedback calls. I was promised these would be sent. Later that day I received yet another quotation — this time the quotation sent was from the original disputed service provider with pictures from the initial assessment (not the one sent the previous day that was used for the first final payout decision) with significantly altered prices. Still no methodology or recordings were included.

I am deeply disappointed in Budget Insurance. I had trusted that your company was a reputable insurer but this experience has completely shattered that belief. This has been the worst insurance experience I’ve ever had and I would not recommend Budget Insurance to anyone.

The process has lacked transparency, consistency, and professionalism. I’ve had to chase answers for weeks only to be ignored, misled, and confused by contradicting information. The attempt to push through a cut-and-join side panel repair, using non-genuine and secondhand parts while ignoring my concerns about safety, quality, and manufacturer compliance is not fair to me as a client.