Vehicle Returned with Unrepaired Bonnet Defect, Followed by Overheating, Delays, and Non-Transparent Claim Handling by 1st for Women

I write this as a highly dissatisfied client who has had to deal with 1st for Women through its consultants, Telesure Investment Holdings, in relation to a motor claim that has been handled in an unfair, delayed, and non-transparent manner.

To summarise the matter, I lodged a claim on 27 November 2025. After the repairs were completed, I received my vehicle back on 9 January 2026. Upon collection, I immediately discovered that the approved repairer had returned my vehicle in a defective state, as the bonnet opening mechanism had been broken. I reported this defect to the repairer before even leaving their premises. I was assured that the required part would be ordered and that the issue would be repaired within two weeks.

That commitment was not honoured.

Two weeks turned into a month, and during this period I remained without proper access to my engine bay because the bonnet could not be opened. On 8 February 2026, my vehicle began overheating. I reported the matter to the insurer on 9 February 2026, and the repairer towed the vehicle on 10 February 2026. Thereafter, there was a complete lack of urgency and communication. My vehicle was not assessed until 27 February 2026, and only after I personally followed up because I had received no feedback from either the insurer or the repairer. On that same day, I was told that the overheating was allegedly not linked to the broken bonnet mechanism, but may instead have been caused by radiator damage from another incident. I rejected that explanation immediately, as it was speculative and unsupported. Importantly, the assessor admitted that the bonnet-opening mechanism was still on back-order. This clearly indicates that the insurer and/or its approved repairer were aware that I had no access to the bonnet and therefore no access to the engine bay. In those circumstances, it is unreasonable to suggest that I ought to have monitored coolant levels, checked for leaks, or taken preventative steps that were physically impossible for me to perform.

At the insurer’s request, I opened a new claim so that the matter could be investigated further. I cooperated fully and requested that they provide proper independent engineering evidence addressing the following: 1. the estimated date of the radiator damage; 2. the nature and severity of the alleged impact; 3. whether the damage was consistent with a minor driveway sc****; 4. whether catastrophic engine failure would have occurred regardless of access to coolant; and 5. how it was determined that access to the bonnet would not have mitigated or reduced the engine damage.

Although they agreed to provide such evidence, nothing meaningful was produced until I repeatedly placed them under pressure to conclude the matter on 30 March 2026. I only received a report on 31 March 2026. Even then, throughout the process, my follow-ups and requests for timelines were met with vague responses and no clear commitment as to when the matter would be resolved.

The eventual report raised more concerns than answers.

In that report, they stated that the radiator was not the cause of the overheating, and instead alleged that the cooling system pipes were responsible and that the engine showed evidence of having been worked on. However, they still failed to address the central issue in dispute, namely: how the fact that I had no access to my engine bay due to their unrepaired defect had no bearing on the overheating and subsequent engine damage.

The report also failed to deal with the broken bonnet opening mechanism itself, the delay in repairing it, and the obvious prejudice this caused me. Most concerningly, the report falsely states that I said I had seen a “pool” of water under the vehicle. I made no such statement. That assertion is inaccurate and appears to have been inserted to support a conclusion that is not grounded in the facts I reported.

In addition, they repeatedly referred to the findings of an “independent engineer,” yet no actual independent engineering report was provided to me. Instead, I received what appears to be an internal analysis presented on their own letterhead, without the underlying technical report, data, methodology, or any objective evidence on which they claim to rely. To date, they continue to reference documents that have not been disclosed to me, while expecting me to accept conclusions that I cannot properly interrogate.

My complaint is straightforward: The approved repairer returned my vehicle to me with a broken bonnet opening mechanism. This defect was reported immediately. The issue remained unresolved for an unreasonable period. During that time, my vehicle overheated. Because I had no access to the engine bay, I was deprived of any meaningful opportunity to inspect, monitor, or respond to any coolant loss, leakage, or warning signs under the bonnet. Despite this, the insurer has failed to properly engage with the causal relevance of that defect, failed to provide full and transparent technical evidence, misrepresented at least one factual statement attributed to me, and delayed the matter throughout. This has been a frustrating, exhausting, and disappointing experience. I expected fairness, transparency, and proper investigation from 1st for Women. Instead, I have encountered delay, poor communication, unsupported conclusions, and an apparent refusal to confront the core issue.

This complaint is being raised as one of my final attempts to resolve the matter directly and fairly. Failing a satisfactory and properly substantiated response, I will have no option but to escalate the matter formally to the relevant Ombudsman.