Formal Complaint Regarding Unjust Handling of Vehicle Recovery Contract

I am writing to express my deep dissatisfaction and concern regarding the way my recent case has been handled. I have been a loyal Cartrack customer since February 2022, under a 3-year vehicle recovery warrant contract. However, following a traumatic event on the night of April 3, 2025, when I was hijacked and kidnapped, I am extremely disappointed with the support and service I received. After the incident, I immediately reported it to Cartrack. To my shock, I was informed that my tracking device had not been active since January 28, 2025. Despite this, Cartrack continued to collect monthly premiums from me, without notifying me of any issue with the device. Earlier this year, a Cartrack consultant contacted me and offered an extension on my recovery warrant, which I accepted and paid for in good faith, unaware that the tracking device was not functioning in my vehicle at the time. When I first signed up for the service, I was told that Cartrack actively monitors all vehicles and would reach out in case of any suspicious activity or technical issues. However, for nearly a year, I never received a single check-in call, not even when my vehicle’s battery died. Now, after the hijacking, I am being told that my recovery warrant application is being rejected on the grounds that: 1. There were old unsuccessful debit order attempts on some payment dates. 2. The tracking device was not active during the time of the incident. 3. It was my responsibility to identify the device malfunction, according to company policy. I find this completely unacceptable. At no point did Cartrack notify me that my device had gone offline. If Cartrack had fulfilled its own policy of monitoring device activity and customer safety, this issue could have been identified and resolved well before the incident occurred. I entered into this agreement trusting that Cartrack would provide the protection and recovery services I was paying for. The fact that I continued to be billed for a non-functional device, combined with the lack of communication and now the denial of my rightful claim, is deeply troubling and, frankly, negligent. I am requesting an urgent review of my case, and I would appreciate a written response detailing: • Why I was not informed when my device went offline. • Why my premiums were still collected for inactive service. • Why Cartrack failed to uphold the responsibility of monitoring and reaching out. • Why my claim is being rejected despite being within the terms of the contract I paid for.