1 reviews | Active since Jan 2013
Poor handling of Vehicle Insurance Claim
Having the worst experience with FSP Solutions vehicle brokers. I don’t even know if they are an insurance company or a broker.
First, they sent an *********** assessor who missed out certain damages when inspecting accident damage. After I alerted them of the front light damages the assessor failed to pick up, they said I must just approve the quote and they will add on the damage that was not picked up. Initially they said they need to determine if front light damage pre-existed when the car is at the panel-beaters until I showed them the images taken on day of accident. After I declined taking the car in and having it checked, they resent their assessor and only then were the light damages added. When I asked the assessor if I do not have a say over the panelbeater selected, he was grumpy and allocated his own preferred panelbeaters. I even had to ask what relationship he has with these panelbeaters. The initial quote also had s****-yard parts to be used that were authorised. I disputed this. Discovery previously replaced the car with OEM parts under the sole condition that the car still has a warranty policy in place even if its out of original manufacturer warranty. These cheap skates opted to use s****-yard parts because the car is out of original manufacturer warranty even though I do have an existing warranty policy. I asked about the age; date and years of these s**** yard parts and receipts/proof of purchase, they could not provide these. Now the fun part. As I do not want second hand or s****-yard parts as per their quote, I asked for a quote with OEM parts and Im to pay in the difference. As these cheap skates are twisting my arm and not willing to pay for OEM parts, I will cover these. I then asked for a condition that they return to me the parts of the car that will be removed and also furnish me with invoices of the OEM parts the panelbeaters will be sourcing. Have heard no response from them. Instead, they went ahead and requested the panelbeaters to quickly schedule a repair appointment without attending to my request. It has been two emails requesting the condition of parts being returned to me and invoices/receipts for the new OEM parts to be replaced (I will be paying out of pocket for these so I deserve the receipts and old parts returned to me as they initially wanted to fix the car with s**** yard parts).
I will await their response so this claim can be closed and I stop this policy with immediate effect after. Never again. I used Discovery Insure and Auto & General, I have never experienced such lacklustre cheap-skate *****ery work and mannerisms from an insurer before!
- The claim was registered by you on 11 August 2023 and settled from our side on 18 August 2023.
- The vehicle in question was a 2012 model Renault Megane that was out of manufacture warranty.
- The issue at hand was that you insisted that we replace all parts on the vehicle with brand new parts; something that does not fall within the ambit of insurance and the general principle of indemnity.
- We also explained at length in our internal communication to you that we were not quoting on s****yard parts as eluded to by you in your post on HelloPeter, but on alternate parts.
- This principle in general is also underpinned by the Ombudsman of Short Term Insurance; a principle that was explained to you in our various internal correspondence prior to your post on HelloPeter.
- We follow the principles of TCF, as well as adhere to the Office of the Ombudsman of Short Term Insurance and in terms of our Right to Repair Policy, settled your claim with a cash payment and applicable indemnity. All of which was explained to you in length.
- Our vehicle assessors determined that your claim for the front fog lights was not accident related, however we gave you the benefit of the doubt and included that in our final settlement.
- Our position is that the claim has been settled and payment to you has been effected and although you may feel that you are entitled to new parts for an 11 year old vehicle, this is not at all aligned to the general principle of indemnity when app**** to all vehicle insurance in South Africa.
- The claim was registered by you on 11 August 2023 and settled from our side on 18 August 2023.
- The vehicle in question was a 2012 model Renault Megane that was out of manufacture warranty.
- The issue at hand was that you insisted that we replace all parts on the vehicle with brand new parts; something that does not fall within the ambit of insurance and the general principle of indemnity.
- We also explained at length in our internal communication to you that we were not quoting on s****yard parts as eluded to by you in your post on HelloPeter, but on alternate parts.
- This principle in general is also underpinned by the Ombudsman of Short Term Insurance; a principle that was explained to you in our various internal correspondence prior to your post on HelloPeter.
- We follow the principles of TCF, as well as adhere to the Office of the Ombudsman of Short Term Insurance and in terms of our Right to Repair Policy, settled your claim with a cash payment and applicable indemnity. All of which was explained to you in length.
- Our vehicle assessors determined that your claim for the front fog lights was not accident related, however we gave you the benefit of the doubt and included that in our final settlement.
- Our position is that the claim has been settled and payment to you has been effected and although you may feel that you are entitled to new parts for an 11 year old vehicle, this is not at all aligned to the general principle of indemnity when app**** to all vehicle insurance in South Africa.
I am the one who had to follow up and get questions answered, and it took in excess of 2-3 weeks.
Yes, you offered me parts from a s****yard? Are you denying that? I still have the quotes. If you claim not to work with s****yards, why were the parts on the quote from a s****yard
At the end of the day, the car is under warranty. I have never had an issue with Discovery Insure fitting OEM parts after a claim with a clause that the car is no longer under the original manufacturer’s warranty. Ofcourse it’s not as it’s older than 5 years
Instead of responding, I was sent a cash option and “shut up” so we settle this claim.
They only paying R18k because you refuse to use original manufacturer parts because the vehicle is no longer under warranty.
The insurance schedule also says nothing about this exclusion.
The whole point of insurance is to limit loss or restore to original condition, putting s**** yard; used; second hand or chinese parts for a light & bumper on a vehicle isn’t restorative. You are on a cust-cutting exercise. Call the Auto & General & Discovery Insure_ used both before on two vehicles and they settled the claim with OEM parts as LONG AS THE CAR HAD A WARRANTY! and both cars did and it wasn’t the original manufacturere warranty
You have appalling; limit-loss-to-us-use-any-clause-possible-so-client-pays-more ; cheap-skate; claim-cost-reduction business practices!!!
I am the one who had to follow up and get questions answered, and it took in excess of 2-3 weeks.
Yes, you offered me parts from a s****yard? Are you denying that? I still have the quotes. If you claim not to work with s****yards, why were the parts on the quote from a s****yard
At the end of the day, the car is under warranty. I have never had an issue with Discovery Insure fitting OEM parts after a claim with a clause that the car is no longer under the original manufacturer’s warranty. Ofcourse it’s not as it’s older than 5 years
Instead of responding, I was sent a cash option and “shut up” so we settle this claim.
They only paying R18k because you refuse to use original manufacturer parts because the vehicle is no longer under warranty.
The insurance schedule also says nothing about this exclusion.
The whole point of insurance is to limit loss or restore to original condition, putting s**** yard; used; second hand or chinese parts for a light & bumper on a vehicle isn’t restorative. You are on a cust-cutting exercise. Call the Auto & General & Discovery Insure_ used both before on two vehicles and they settled the claim with OEM parts as LONG AS THE CAR HAD A WARRANTY! and both cars did and it wasn’t the original manufacturere warranty
You have appalling; limit-loss-to-us-use-any-clause-possible-so-client-pays-more ; cheap-skate; claim-cost-reduction business practices!!!
YOU ARE TALKING NONSENSE! Using jargon and big words like “we deem this matter as finalised” MEANS NOTHING. You are just a hogwash yet you deem yourself a registered and credible insurance co. or broker. See what your VFV attorneys (who supposedly deem themselves as handlers of your third party claims) have done so far from August 11 to October 9 today. On 22 September, your claims consultant Dylan was still doing follow ups with me and correspondence about this claim. I have the e-mails. Yet your previous responses above say the matter was finalised on 18 August. You have the GALL to lie on a public platform, it’s appalling to lie like this.
Which matter was finalised on 18 August?This is the correspondence from the 3rd party sent to me on Thursday 5 October. :
“It's been over a week now ever since I took my car to their assessor and now they are not answering their phones can you please ask them what's the way forward.”
YOU ARE TALKING NONSENSE! Using jargon and big words like “we deem this matter as finalised” MEANS NOTHING. You are just a hogwash yet you deem yourself a registered and credible insurance co. or broker. See what your VFV attorneys (who supposedly deem themselves as handlers of your third party claims) have done so far from August 11 to October 9 today. On 22 September, your claims consultant Dylan was still doing follow ups with me and correspondence about this claim. I have the e-mails. Yet your previous responses above say the matter was finalised on 18 August. You have the GALL to lie on a public platform, it’s appalling to lie like this.
Which matter was finalised on 18 August?This is the correspondence from the 3rd party sent to me on Thursday 5 October. :
“It's been over a week now ever since I took my car to their assessor and now they are not answering their phones can you please ask them what's the way forward.”