LL
Lebo L
1 reviews | Active since May 2022
08 Feb 2025, 09:42
****s with replacements using alternative and second hand supper products
My windscreen was rejected because I wanted them to replace it with the original manufacturer windscreen instead of the alternative that they have.
Which is surprising because the broken windscreen is by the original manafacturer. So if you need rejected claims and want to accept subpar products then go with KingPrice.
Helpful (0)
Replies (6)0
Replies (6)
King Price Insurance's replyOfficial
10 Feb 2025, 13:41We're so sorry that you’re unhappy with us. We have an internal dispute resolution team that’s qualified and trained to assist in such matters. You can lodge an objection to the outcome of your claim by emailing a detailed dispute to ***
King Price Insurance's reply10 Feb 2025, 13:41
Official
We're so sorry that you’re unhappy with us. We have an internal dispute resolution team that’s qualified and trained to assist in such matters. You can lodge an objection to the outcome of your claim by emailing a detailed dispute to ***
King Price Insurance's replyOfficial
10 Feb 2025, 13:42Alternative glass is not inferior to a branded glass. All glass manufactured for the use as windscreens must be SABS approved and both branded and alternative glass are subject to the very same SABS standard and tests. Alternative glass merely come at a much better rate than that of the branded alternative. Alternative glass is accepted as a preferred replacement within the insurance industry, as there is no difference in the quality of the glass. There are instances in which we will consider installing branded glass, but there must be clear merit in this decision. Mostly this will be if the warranty of your vehicle will be effected. If your vehicle is under warranty King Price will require a letter from the manufacturer that confirms that the installation of a non-branded Glass will void your warranty.
King Price Insurance's reply10 Feb 2025, 13:42
Official
Alternative glass is not inferior to a branded glass. All glass manufactured for the use as windscreens must be SABS approved and both branded and alternative glass are subject to the very same SABS standard and tests. Alternative glass merely come at a much better rate than that of the branded alternative. Alternative glass is accepted as a preferred replacement within the insurance industry, as there is no difference in the quality of the glass. There are instances in which we will consider installing branded glass, but there must be clear merit in this decision. Mostly this will be if the warranty of your vehicle will be effected. If your vehicle is under warranty King Price will require a letter from the manufacturer that confirms that the installation of a non-branded Glass will void your warranty.
LL
Lebo L's updateReviewer Update
10 Feb 2025, 17:35I have referred the matter to both your complaints department and the decision department.
You are not able to assure me 100% that there is no difference in the manufacturing procedures from each glass. They are different and can be scientifically proven as the quality and standards of each manufacturing plant are not the same. Hence I say it is inferior, might be acceptable by your low standards but not mine.
You are not able to assure me 100% that there is no difference in the manufacturing procedures from each glass. They are different and can be scientifically proven as the quality and standards of each manufacturing plant are not the same. Hence I say it is inferior, might be acceptable by your low standards but not mine.
LL
Lebo L's update10 Feb 2025, 17:35
Reviewer Update
I have referred the matter to both your complaints department and the decision department.
You are not able to assure me 100% that there is no difference in the manufacturing procedures from each glass. They are different and can be scientifically proven as the quality and standards of each manufacturing plant are not the same. Hence I say it is inferior, might be acceptable by your low standards but not mine.
You are not able to assure me 100% that there is no difference in the manufacturing procedures from each glass. They are different and can be scientifically proven as the quality and standards of each manufacturing plant are not the same. Hence I say it is inferior, might be acceptable by your low standards but not mine.
LL
Lebo L's updateReviewer Update
11 Feb 2025, 07:02We are also digressing from the point, I have a claim for a windscreen replacement for which I insured an original Mercedes Benz windscreen. Your supplier let me know that they will be using an alternative replacement, which I do not agree with for the below reasons and also refuting what I have been told by your representatives:
1. The ombudsman allows for replacement with different parts:Original factory supp**** components must be fitted whenever a critical component of the motor vehicle may be damaged or where the warranty or maintenance plan of a vehicle may be adversely affected by the fitment of other components. Depending upon the circumstance of each case and in particular the age and condition of a car, there is however no reason why components made by outside component manufacturers should not be used where this can result in cost savings, provided that issues of safety or reliability are not compromised. The use of second-hand parts, where appropriate, is also to be encouraged as a cost saving measure. The Ombudsman stresses that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and that each case must be assessed on its own individual merit. However, he appeals to members of the public to be reasonable and practical in their approach to the repair of accident damage and by insurers, pointing out that the underlying purpose of insurance is one of indemnification and not enrichment.
This is deliberately misinterpreted and app**** as a hard and fast rule by your agents. That is incorrect additionally the ombudsman states that each cases must be assessed on its own merits. The replacement of my OM windscreen with a different OM windscreen would not result in my enrichment but one would say that it would result in the enrichment of King Price by replacing an original with a cheaper and not at all of the same calibre windscreen without a reduction in the policy 2. Stating that King Price is permitted according to policy to replace without whatever part they deem permissible:This is incorrect because your policies are governed by law and guidances from the insurance ombudsman. With that said point 1 applies.And now to get to the merits of the case, I insured my vehicle with King Price, the vehicle is insured completely including all its components with that said one of the components is an original windscreen. I should receive the same component I am insured for when claiming.
1. The ombudsman allows for replacement with different parts:Original factory supp**** components must be fitted whenever a critical component of the motor vehicle may be damaged or where the warranty or maintenance plan of a vehicle may be adversely affected by the fitment of other components. Depending upon the circumstance of each case and in particular the age and condition of a car, there is however no reason why components made by outside component manufacturers should not be used where this can result in cost savings, provided that issues of safety or reliability are not compromised. The use of second-hand parts, where appropriate, is also to be encouraged as a cost saving measure. The Ombudsman stresses that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and that each case must be assessed on its own individual merit. However, he appeals to members of the public to be reasonable and practical in their approach to the repair of accident damage and by insurers, pointing out that the underlying purpose of insurance is one of indemnification and not enrichment.
This is deliberately misinterpreted and app**** as a hard and fast rule by your agents. That is incorrect additionally the ombudsman states that each cases must be assessed on its own merits. The replacement of my OM windscreen with a different OM windscreen would not result in my enrichment but one would say that it would result in the enrichment of King Price by replacing an original with a cheaper and not at all of the same calibre windscreen without a reduction in the policy 2. Stating that King Price is permitted according to policy to replace without whatever part they deem permissible:This is incorrect because your policies are governed by law and guidances from the insurance ombudsman. With that said point 1 applies.And now to get to the merits of the case, I insured my vehicle with King Price, the vehicle is insured completely including all its components with that said one of the components is an original windscreen. I should receive the same component I am insured for when claiming.
LL
Lebo L's update11 Feb 2025, 07:02
Reviewer Update
We are also digressing from the point, I have a claim for a windscreen replacement for which I insured an original Mercedes Benz windscreen. Your supplier let me know that they will be using an alternative replacement, which I do not agree with for the below reasons and also refuting what I have been told by your representatives:
1. The ombudsman allows for replacement with different parts:Original factory supp**** components must be fitted whenever a critical component of the motor vehicle may be damaged or where the warranty or maintenance plan of a vehicle may be adversely affected by the fitment of other components. Depending upon the circumstance of each case and in particular the age and condition of a car, there is however no reason why components made by outside component manufacturers should not be used where this can result in cost savings, provided that issues of safety or reliability are not compromised. The use of second-hand parts, where appropriate, is also to be encouraged as a cost saving measure. The Ombudsman stresses that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and that each case must be assessed on its own individual merit. However, he appeals to members of the public to be reasonable and practical in their approach to the repair of accident damage and by insurers, pointing out that the underlying purpose of insurance is one of indemnification and not enrichment.
This is deliberately misinterpreted and app**** as a hard and fast rule by your agents. That is incorrect additionally the ombudsman states that each cases must be assessed on its own merits. The replacement of my OM windscreen with a different OM windscreen would not result in my enrichment but one would say that it would result in the enrichment of King Price by replacing an original with a cheaper and not at all of the same calibre windscreen without a reduction in the policy 2. Stating that King Price is permitted according to policy to replace without whatever part they deem permissible:This is incorrect because your policies are governed by law and guidances from the insurance ombudsman. With that said point 1 applies.And now to get to the merits of the case, I insured my vehicle with King Price, the vehicle is insured completely including all its components with that said one of the components is an original windscreen. I should receive the same component I am insured for when claiming.
1. The ombudsman allows for replacement with different parts:Original factory supp**** components must be fitted whenever a critical component of the motor vehicle may be damaged or where the warranty or maintenance plan of a vehicle may be adversely affected by the fitment of other components. Depending upon the circumstance of each case and in particular the age and condition of a car, there is however no reason why components made by outside component manufacturers should not be used where this can result in cost savings, provided that issues of safety or reliability are not compromised. The use of second-hand parts, where appropriate, is also to be encouraged as a cost saving measure. The Ombudsman stresses that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and that each case must be assessed on its own individual merit. However, he appeals to members of the public to be reasonable and practical in their approach to the repair of accident damage and by insurers, pointing out that the underlying purpose of insurance is one of indemnification and not enrichment.
This is deliberately misinterpreted and app**** as a hard and fast rule by your agents. That is incorrect additionally the ombudsman states that each cases must be assessed on its own merits. The replacement of my OM windscreen with a different OM windscreen would not result in my enrichment but one would say that it would result in the enrichment of King Price by replacing an original with a cheaper and not at all of the same calibre windscreen without a reduction in the policy 2. Stating that King Price is permitted according to policy to replace without whatever part they deem permissible:This is incorrect because your policies are governed by law and guidances from the insurance ombudsman. With that said point 1 applies.And now to get to the merits of the case, I insured my vehicle with King Price, the vehicle is insured completely including all its components with that said one of the components is an original windscreen. I should receive the same component I am insured for when claiming.
King Price Insurance's replyOfficial
11 Feb 2025, 07:03Kindly refer any further communication to the Your council team for further advise.
King Price Insurance's reply11 Feb 2025, 07:03
Official
Kindly refer any further communication to the Your council team for further advise.
King Price Insurance's replyOfficial
11 Feb 2025, 09:56Kindly refer any further communication to the Your council team for further advise.
King Price Insurance's reply11 Feb 2025, 09:56
Official
Kindly refer any further communication to the Your council team for further advise.