1 reviews | Active since Jan 2013
Mercedes Benz pirate part use - from Santam parts database - in car repair
<p>When one pays for what is described as ‘Private Client Insurance’, one doesn’t really expect amateur stupid con tricks such as those being perpetrated under the guise of ‘aftermarket’ parts for the repair of my Mercedes Benz.</p> <p> </p> <p>The argument used here is that my Mercedes Benz is out of warranty and even though being under 10 years old and the use of ‘Alternate Parts’ which I now know are factually pirate parts are now being used to hold my car repair hostage effectively.</p> <p> </p> <p>My policy & schedule applicable herein is ‘Comprehensive’ and there are NO endor*****ts speaking to these convenient rules made up by Santam as well as that of Echelon PCI to sacrifice my road safety in the name of making a buck for the insurance company. Further to this, there are alternatives such as Used Parts which were never exercised in the parts assessment report. So the only likely explanation is, that there is a conflict of interest or incentive (aka kickback) to nominate parts from Grandmark (a preferred supplier) than use original Mercedes Benz parts.</p> <p> </p> <p>Also, the critical component such as my left front lamp is intrinsically complicated by virtue of the electronics inherent in these components and using KNOCKOFFS is astonishing and reckless for an insurance company and patently ********** to even suggest.</p> <p> </p> <p>I say this with authority as patent law is as follows: Parts and design applicable to this 2008 Mercedes Benz model has not run out and any part (it’s 10 years generally), critical or not, manufactured without licensing from Mercedes Benz is what we know in the Import/Export biz as pirate parts/knockoff/genuine ****s. You are welcome to refer to the attached pics herein speaking to the one of the **** parts planned to be used in the repair of my Mercedes Benz.</p> <p> </p> <p>I’ve requested a written and signed letter from Procurement Manager David Reid-Ross as well as CEO, Darrel Dawson, apparently they don’t speak English after this revelation. Yet they are attempting to engage in tactics that will have serious legal repercussions for both Santam & Echelon PCI.</p> <p> </p> <p>Also, Media Managers can’t seem to engage Internal Arbitrators to react in a manner conducive to 24 hours insurance as Judge Brian Galgut (*** ) is out of the office till 11 August 2016 at Santam. Also, the contractual extension of my present rental car (which should be for 30 days instead of 14 days) has yet to be concluded as it proceeds to run out come 9 August 2016.</p> <p> </p> <p>As per the contract to which Echelon PCI drew up with fervent specificity, I as the client, have the right to demand ORIGINAL parts to be used for set repair. If you can’t have the present panel beater do the job for you, then you’re welcome to take my car to Mercedes Benz on Old Fort Road, Durban and have them repair it to code where any funny business of whack-a-doodle parts won’t be a problem!</p> <p> </p> <p>In so far as the opinion of the Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance, their opinion is merely suggestive and highly influenced by virtue of membership fees from the insurance companies to ensure they look your way for profit at the expense of client safety. Nonetheless, I can assure you any court of law will indicate that this car be repaired back to its status as indicated in your own issued policy/contract. Also the FSB doesn’t look favourably upon Authorised Financial Service Providers (FSP 40613) engaging in dubious tactics that outline now demonstrated *****.</p> <p> </p> <p>I have sincerely tried to be reasonable, engaging, factual as well as indicating simple matters of fact that trained and experienced individuals in the motor industry would agree with but Echelon PCI in conjunction with Santam insist on putting themselves squarely in the line of liability. Not very smart nor wise for an insurance company.</p> <p> </p> <p>I trust this matter will be resolved expediently without the need for further firm action.</p> <p> </p>
Dear Mr. Chan,
Thank you for your message.
As per our previous communication with you, "we wish to again notify you of the fact that these parts that were authorised are not “pirate parts” as you refer to them – they are certified aftermarket parts carrying the same warranty as the original OEM manufacturer’s parts.
The extract from Mercedes Benz on their Facebook wall, clearly differentiates between the two types of parts and the first portion of their posting refers to the replacement of original or genuine parts adhering to the terms of their warranty – we wish to highlight that your vehicle is not under manufacturer’s warranty anymore.
We also wish to point out that Mercedes Benz didn’t see your vehicle or the assessment and purely comments on your usage of the phrase “pirate parts”.
Again we emphasize, we are not using “pirate parts” in the repair process.
Our decision remains unchanged and you are welcome to follow the escalation channel should you wish to do so as advised in our previous correspondence."
We advised you of your rights of recourse against us and our principals. You have alleged that the Ombudsman's opinion "is merely suggestive and highly influenced by virtue of membership fees from the insurance companies to ensure they look your way for profit at the expense of client safety."
You have chosen to escalate this matter via Santam's Internal Arbitrator and their offices have advised you that they are unable to attend to your complaint until 11th August 2016. You have a hired vehicle at your disposal, so we do not believe that their request for your patience in this regard, is unreasonable.
We do not see your actions as "sincerely trying to be reasonable, engaging, factual as well as indicating simple matters of fact that trained and experienced individuals in the motor industry would agree" as we have provided you with your rights of recourse against us. You have nevertheless chosen to use every possible public platform at your disposal to make defamatory statements against us, our principals and any provider involved in the process of your vehicle repair.
We do not take kindly to your allegations that we are "engaging in dubious tactics" and that this situation can be regarded as a "demonstrated *****". We have advised you of your rights of recourse, and will investigate our recourse concerning your slanderous comments.
We currently await the Internal Arbitrator's findings regarding your complaint and will not be engaging further with you, directly or on any public platform, until we have received same.
Kind Regards,
Echelon Private Client Insurance
Dear Mr. Chan,
Thank you for your message.
As per our previous communication with you, "we wish to again notify you of the fact that these parts that were authorised are not “pirate parts” as you refer to them – they are certified aftermarket parts carrying the same warranty as the original OEM manufacturer’s parts.
The extract from Mercedes Benz on their Facebook wall, clearly differentiates between the two types of parts and the first portion of their posting refers to the replacement of original or genuine parts adhering to the terms of their warranty – we wish to highlight that your vehicle is not under manufacturer’s warranty anymore.
We also wish to point out that Mercedes Benz didn’t see your vehicle or the assessment and purely comments on your usage of the phrase “pirate parts”.
Again we emphasize, we are not using “pirate parts” in the repair process.
Our decision remains unchanged and you are welcome to follow the escalation channel should you wish to do so as advised in our previous correspondence."
We advised you of your rights of recourse against us and our principals. You have alleged that the Ombudsman's opinion "is merely suggestive and highly influenced by virtue of membership fees from the insurance companies to ensure they look your way for profit at the expense of client safety."
You have chosen to escalate this matter via Santam's Internal Arbitrator and their offices have advised you that they are unable to attend to your complaint until 11th August 2016. You have a hired vehicle at your disposal, so we do not believe that their request for your patience in this regard, is unreasonable.
We do not see your actions as "sincerely trying to be reasonable, engaging, factual as well as indicating simple matters of fact that trained and experienced individuals in the motor industry would agree" as we have provided you with your rights of recourse against us. You have nevertheless chosen to use every possible public platform at your disposal to make defamatory statements against us, our principals and any provider involved in the process of your vehicle repair.
We do not take kindly to your allegations that we are "engaging in dubious tactics" and that this situation can be regarded as a "demonstrated *****". We have advised you of your rights of recourse, and will investigate our recourse concerning your slanderous comments.
We currently await the Internal Arbitrator's findings regarding your complaint and will not be engaging further with you, directly or on any public platform, until we have received same.
Kind Regards,
Echelon Private Client Insurance