Not a happy Customer Formal Complaint & Dispute – Poor Service and Unjust Claim Rejection (KP*** – KPW022820 – Maphosa

Subject: Formal Complaint & Dispute – Poor Service and Unjust Claim Rejection (KP*** – KPW022820 – Maphosa) Dear Tamira / King Price Complaints Department, I wish to formally raise my dissatisfaction with the handling of my motor warranty claim (***) and the poor service received from both King Price Warranty and the appointed consultant Ms. Eloise Monteiro. This experience has left me extremely disappointed, not only in how my claim was rejected without due consideration but also in the overall level of customer service and technical competence displayed throughout the process. 1. Lack of Professionalism and Customer Care Throughout my engagement with Ms. Monteiro, I found her to be unresponsive, dismissive, and lacking technical understanding. I had to make repeated follow-ups just to receive basic feedback, and there was no effort to engage meaningfully or to discuss the technical aspects of my claim. As a paying customer with multiple vehicles insured under King Price, I expected a level of professionalism that reflects care and accountability — not indifference. The consultant demonstrated no customer service empathy, and at no point was I given the opportunity to explain or clarify the technical report findings before the claim was summarily declined. 2. Failure to Investigate or Appoint an Assessor Despite providing all requested reports, diagnostic results, compression test readings, and photographic evidence from a qualified technician, King Price and GRSA failed to send an independent assessor or technical expert to physically verify the mechanical condition of the vehicle. This step is essential in ensuring fair assessment and transparency — especially in cases involving internal engine damage. Instead, the rejection appears to have been based purely on documentation, without investigation or on-site evaluation. This demonstrates negligence and procedural failure in how claims are reviewed. 3. Technical Misjudgment of Claim As detailed in my earlier correspondence, the failure identified is mechanical in nature, not electrical. Compression loss, oil leaks between the head and block, and worn cam followers are all mechanical failures of internally lubricated components — explicitly covered under my policy. It is therefore unacceptable that the claim was rejected under the pretext of being “electrical.” The supporting diagnostic data clearly shows that: • Cylinder 2 compression is below specification (9.8 bar vs 18–25 bar standard). • Cam follower noise and oil leaks confirm internal component wear. • Electrical fault codes such as misfire or crankshaft correlation were secondary symptoms caused by the mechanical failure — not the root cause. Rejecting the claim without acknowledging these findings suggests a lack of technical competence or disregard for the facts provided. 4. Reliability and Trust Concerns As a loyal customer with four vehicles insured under King Price, this experience has raised serious doubts about the credibility and reliability of your warranty products. The lack of proper investigation, poor communication, and wrongful interpretation of technical data makes it difficult to trust that future claims will be handled fairly or transparently. A warranty policy is meant to provide peace of mind — not additional frustration and financial loss for policyholders who act in good faith. 5. Requested Action I respectfully request that: 1. My claim be reopened and reassessed with the involvement of an independent assessor or technical expert. 2. A formal apology and explanation be issued for the unprofessional handling of my case by Ms. Monteiro. 3. King Price review the internal process of claim evaluation to ensure that future customers are not unfairly treated or dismissed without a proper technical review. 6. Supporting Evidence All relevant documentation has been submitted, including: • Diagnostic and compression test reports • Photographic evidence of mechanical failure • Technician’s findings from Kalnir Korp CC • Correspondence trail with GRSA and King Price In conclusion, this entire experience reflects poor customer service, inadequate technical assessment, and a lack of accountability. I trusted King Price to stand by their promises and warranty commitments, but the way this matter was handled shows the opposite. I look forward to a fair, transparent, and prompt resolution of this dispute. Kind regards, Dumo Maphosa Cell: *** Email: *** / *** Date: 12 November 2025