Disgusted customer!

My boyfriend lodge a claim with First For Women (FFW) on 22 September 2019, the day of his accident, after a frustrating claims process they finally accepted and approved his claim. However, I understand from information given by FFW that certain assessments had to be done on the vehicle and thus it was towed to and from different repair centers affiliated to FFW. After the claim had been approved he was informed that the car was sent to Autobahn BMW repair center for repairs. We then visited that center on 5 October 2019 to see if the car was being stored safely, upon arrival it was closed as they do not work weekends but we were assisted by a security guard whom he requested to take pictures of the car. The pictures showed that the wheels of the car had been moved around/swapped. My boyfriend then called FFW for updates on his claim on 7 October 2019 and was informed of the basic excess payable and was informed of a "betterment" excess which he disputed. He explained that this additional excess was a material disclosure which was not explained/disclosed at the time of me taking out the policy nor is it reflected on his policy documents. They have now demanded that he pays an additional R3238 in "betterment excess", which he has vehemently disputed as there was no prior disclosure of this and it is in clear breach of the PPRs and TCF. He also queried the "additional information" provided by FFW regarding pre-existing damage on his car, particularly the wheels. He explained his observation that some of the wheels had been swapped around and this is prejudicial as those wheels damaged in the accident could be deemed as pre-existing. He also took pictures which evidence that the car was not damaged anywhere (including the wheels) on the passenger side. Damage was on the driver side. He noted that FFW actions are in blatant breach of the Policyholder Protection Rules, particularly rules 6.4, 11.3.1(e), 11.3.4 (a)-(e), 11.3.5, 11.4.2(ii) and falls very short of what is required under rule 11.5.1(c)(iii) and (e). He has sent various emails to FFW explaining his position and they have chosen to ignore me completely and have not even sent me the call recording in which they purported to explain this condition. I am also quite certain that my boyfriend is not the only person who has been a victim of this behaviour and FFW is using it as a means of maximizing profit and pushing most of the risk to the policyholder without the requisite regulatory disclosures. They take it for granted that the market does not understand this "betterment excess" and therefore needs to be explained in detail and obtain confirmation that clients understand it so that they can make an informed decision. My boyfriend is of the view that has he been aware of this limitation/additional excess he would not have continued with the policy or would have obtained cover to mitigate this loss. First For Women has ignored all efforts to resolve this matter. He merely wanted his car to be fixed without prejudice and apparent post-sale barriers being imposed by FFW. They are attempting to limit their liability under the claim by declaring pre-existing damages that were not there and also charging additional excesses that were never disclosed. They are not forthcoming with any evidence to indicate that this additional excess was sufficiently disclosed. My boyfriend is merely looking for them to honour their obligations under the policy fully without unduly apportioning losses that were not disclosed to me at inception. Also this behaviour should be of interest to the FSCA as we are quite certain that he is not the only person falling foul of this ********* conduct. One would think that a n ensurer focused on women would make sure that their technical disclosures are easy to understand and not seek to take advantage of consumers.

We have never dealt with such a ***** and arrogant insurer. With them it doesn’t help reading your T’s and C’s as they are blatantly underhanded in their approach.

Very disappointed!!!