AR
Andries R
1 reviews | Active since Aug 2019
06 Aug 2019, 14:59
Unacceptable service
I am very dissappointed in the service I have been receiving from King Price. My car was ****** a month ago and I reported it immediately as well as the fact that the vehicle was recovered shortly after it being ******. King price did not know where my car was at first and was unsure themselves of the process to be followed in the event of the car being recovered despite me enquiring daily on the progress of the case. I constantly had to call them to find out what was happening. After enquiring if I had to go and identify my car at the impound, I was informed the car has already been moved to an impound in my city of residence and that no identification was necessary. Please note ALL correspondence was only after I had enquired about progress. Eventually the asessor went to check the damage on my car and noted that the car will be fixed as the damage is not substantial. I was emailed a report with incorrect vehicle details such as that there was leather interior, which it has not, that the bakkie is 4x4, which it also is not, with not much detail about damage. It is now a month later and I visited the locksmith (yes LOCKSMITH) where the bakkie was sent for repairs yesterday and I am not at all pleased at the state of the institution. Earlier the owner of this institution called me and stated that the assessor missed alot of the damage in his assessment and new quotes will have to be sent to King Price, the valuenof damage went from R30 000 to almost R80 000. Nothing has been fixed on the car, the car is outside under a carport where it will also be fixed. The car originally had all original parts and will now be fitted with replacement parts which I believe is not of the same value. When I enquired with the owner of the current repairs institution he told me my bakkie cannot go to a more "reputable" business as my bakkie is no longer under warranty and the other institution charges R100 more labour per hour than he does. While I understand that King Price' policy states that similar parts may be installed, nowhere has it been stated that these parts may decrease the value of the vehicle. This means I will be operating at a bigger loss financially than if they had written off the bakkie, where the current market value of the bakkie has to be paid out. I believe the value of parts is less because I saw the replacement key and I could see in the quality that it is obviously of less value. If I were to sell the car after it being fixed from the current institution I believe I will receive less rhan the market value. I have been trying to reach the persons at King Price working on my claim but I am being ignored. I want anwers to my concerns asap or I will be forced to take this matter further or refer this case to the ombudsman. I am now paying for a vehicle not in my posession and seems it will not be in my posession anytime soon, I am not willing to settle for a bakkie which is worth less than it was when it was ******. That means King Price gets the benefit of the claim and not me and I am on comprehensive cover. This is unacceptable.
Helpful (0)
Replies (2)0
Replies (2)
King Price Insurance's replyOfficial
06 Aug 2019, 15:29Hi Andries
Thank you for your comments and allowing us the opportunity to respond. We have sent your concerns to management in claims whom will be in contact to discuss. Please see the following excerpt an article from the Ombudsman for short term insurance regarding parts :
''The Office of the Ombudsman for Short-Term Insurance frequently receives complaints from consumers concerning the use by Insurers when repairing motor vehicles of so-called “pirate parts” as well as second hand components. There is a perception on the part of the public that an Insurer is obliged, when repairing a motor vehicle, to use new original factory supp**** parts in all instances.
The Ombudsman, Mr. Brian Martin, says ”the cost of repairing damaged motor vehicles has risen significantly over time and is a major factor in the high cost of motor vehicle insurance. If premiums are to be kept at reasonable levels and increases in premiums within similar bounds, it is imperative that everything possible be done to keep repair costs down, but at the same time without compromising safety or quality standards.” The low incidence of comprehensive motor vehicle insurance is an area of major concern to the Ombudsman and the less affordable insurance products are the greater the temptation on the part of consumers to self-insure, which can have far-reaching consequences not only for the motorist himself, but society at large.
The Ombudsman points out that in the modern world very few motor manufacturers actually manufacture the components incorporated into their motor vehicles and a high percentage of these components are sourced from specialist component manufacturers. Components may be common to more than one make of motor vehicle. A distinction is to be drawn between components made by reputable manufacturers which conform to recognise safety or quality standards and those which may be classified as **** or unauthorised copies made by unspecified manufacturers, often in China. 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. He also draws attention to the fact that “betterment” is not app**** in relation to individual components of a motor vehicle, but only where the overall value of an insured article has been increased through a process of repair or reinstatement. Should the insurer be able to show this through independent evidence, then the Ombudsman will allow a deduction from the claim to the extent of the “betterment”.''
This article can be found on the following link : https://www.fanews.co.za/article/compliance-regulatory/2/short-term-ombudsman/1025/ombudsman-for-short-term-insurance-the-use-of-pirate-and-second-hand-parts-in-the-repair-of-motor-vehicles/6410
Thank you for your comments and allowing us the opportunity to respond. We have sent your concerns to management in claims whom will be in contact to discuss. Please see the following excerpt an article from the Ombudsman for short term insurance regarding parts :
''The Office of the Ombudsman for Short-Term Insurance frequently receives complaints from consumers concerning the use by Insurers when repairing motor vehicles of so-called “pirate parts” as well as second hand components. There is a perception on the part of the public that an Insurer is obliged, when repairing a motor vehicle, to use new original factory supp**** parts in all instances.
The Ombudsman, Mr. Brian Martin, says ”the cost of repairing damaged motor vehicles has risen significantly over time and is a major factor in the high cost of motor vehicle insurance. If premiums are to be kept at reasonable levels and increases in premiums within similar bounds, it is imperative that everything possible be done to keep repair costs down, but at the same time without compromising safety or quality standards.” The low incidence of comprehensive motor vehicle insurance is an area of major concern to the Ombudsman and the less affordable insurance products are the greater the temptation on the part of consumers to self-insure, which can have far-reaching consequences not only for the motorist himself, but society at large.
The Ombudsman points out that in the modern world very few motor manufacturers actually manufacture the components incorporated into their motor vehicles and a high percentage of these components are sourced from specialist component manufacturers. Components may be common to more than one make of motor vehicle. A distinction is to be drawn between components made by reputable manufacturers which conform to recognise safety or quality standards and those which may be classified as **** or unauthorised copies made by unspecified manufacturers, often in China. 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. He also draws attention to the fact that “betterment” is not app**** in relation to individual components of a motor vehicle, but only where the overall value of an insured article has been increased through a process of repair or reinstatement. Should the insurer be able to show this through independent evidence, then the Ombudsman will allow a deduction from the claim to the extent of the “betterment”.''
This article can be found on the following link : https://www.fanews.co.za/article/compliance-regulatory/2/short-term-ombudsman/1025/ombudsman-for-short-term-insurance-the-use-of-pirate-and-second-hand-parts-in-the-repair-of-motor-vehicles/6410
King Price Insurance's reply06 Aug 2019, 15:29
Official
Hi Andries
Thank you for your comments and allowing us the opportunity to respond. We have sent your concerns to management in claims whom will be in contact to discuss. Please see the following excerpt an article from the Ombudsman for short term insurance regarding parts :
''The Office of the Ombudsman for Short-Term Insurance frequently receives complaints from consumers concerning the use by Insurers when repairing motor vehicles of so-called “pirate parts” as well as second hand components. There is a perception on the part of the public that an Insurer is obliged, when repairing a motor vehicle, to use new original factory supp**** parts in all instances.
The Ombudsman, Mr. Brian Martin, says ”the cost of repairing damaged motor vehicles has risen significantly over time and is a major factor in the high cost of motor vehicle insurance. If premiums are to be kept at reasonable levels and increases in premiums within similar bounds, it is imperative that everything possible be done to keep repair costs down, but at the same time without compromising safety or quality standards.” The low incidence of comprehensive motor vehicle insurance is an area of major concern to the Ombudsman and the less affordable insurance products are the greater the temptation on the part of consumers to self-insure, which can have far-reaching consequences not only for the motorist himself, but society at large.
The Ombudsman points out that in the modern world very few motor manufacturers actually manufacture the components incorporated into their motor vehicles and a high percentage of these components are sourced from specialist component manufacturers. Components may be common to more than one make of motor vehicle. A distinction is to be drawn between components made by reputable manufacturers which conform to recognise safety or quality standards and those which may be classified as **** or unauthorised copies made by unspecified manufacturers, often in China. 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. He also draws attention to the fact that “betterment” is not app**** in relation to individual components of a motor vehicle, but only where the overall value of an insured article has been increased through a process of repair or reinstatement. Should the insurer be able to show this through independent evidence, then the Ombudsman will allow a deduction from the claim to the extent of the “betterment”.''
This article can be found on the following link : https://www.fanews.co.za/article/compliance-regulatory/2/short-term-ombudsman/1025/ombudsman-for-short-term-insurance-the-use-of-pirate-and-second-hand-parts-in-the-repair-of-motor-vehicles/6410
Thank you for your comments and allowing us the opportunity to respond. We have sent your concerns to management in claims whom will be in contact to discuss. Please see the following excerpt an article from the Ombudsman for short term insurance regarding parts :
''The Office of the Ombudsman for Short-Term Insurance frequently receives complaints from consumers concerning the use by Insurers when repairing motor vehicles of so-called “pirate parts” as well as second hand components. There is a perception on the part of the public that an Insurer is obliged, when repairing a motor vehicle, to use new original factory supp**** parts in all instances.
The Ombudsman, Mr. Brian Martin, says ”the cost of repairing damaged motor vehicles has risen significantly over time and is a major factor in the high cost of motor vehicle insurance. If premiums are to be kept at reasonable levels and increases in premiums within similar bounds, it is imperative that everything possible be done to keep repair costs down, but at the same time without compromising safety or quality standards.” The low incidence of comprehensive motor vehicle insurance is an area of major concern to the Ombudsman and the less affordable insurance products are the greater the temptation on the part of consumers to self-insure, which can have far-reaching consequences not only for the motorist himself, but society at large.
The Ombudsman points out that in the modern world very few motor manufacturers actually manufacture the components incorporated into their motor vehicles and a high percentage of these components are sourced from specialist component manufacturers. Components may be common to more than one make of motor vehicle. A distinction is to be drawn between components made by reputable manufacturers which conform to recognise safety or quality standards and those which may be classified as **** or unauthorised copies made by unspecified manufacturers, often in China. 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. He also draws attention to the fact that “betterment” is not app**** in relation to individual components of a motor vehicle, but only where the overall value of an insured article has been increased through a process of repair or reinstatement. Should the insurer be able to show this through independent evidence, then the Ombudsman will allow a deduction from the claim to the extent of the “betterment”.''
This article can be found on the following link : https://www.fanews.co.za/article/compliance-regulatory/2/short-term-ombudsman/1025/ombudsman-for-short-term-insurance-the-use-of-pirate-and-second-hand-parts-in-the-repair-of-motor-vehicles/6410
AR
Andries R's updateReviewer Update
06 Aug 2019, 16:13Thank you for the response. The link provided does not work. The article does however state that each case will be judged on merit, I will then take the chance that mine be judged on merit. The article also does not mention that the consumer has no right to complain about the institution where the vehicle is being repaired. As stated, it is not suggested the vehicle go to Toyota but pirate parts are made by Bosch also, the owner of the institution stating that the vehicle goes to a less reputable repairer due to the warranty status of the vehicle is also baffling. Decreasing the value of a vehicles market value certainly will not come down to enrichment in regards to the consumer but rather unjustified enrichment for the insurer. Nowhere in a policy does it state that the vehicle becomes the property of the insurer, does that not indicate that I, the owner, have a right to get quotes or to know the status of my vehicle? This reply also does not address the incompetence of the assessment staff at King Price. The vehicle was also ******, not damaged due to and accident.
Please see below extract:
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS: SERVICES
The more important insurance services affected by the CPA:
· A policy would be interpreted in favour of the consumer, in the event of ambiguity allowing for more than one reasonable interpretation. This reflects the existing law, but is now an unalterable right. · Any exclusion within the insurance contract would be measured against whether a reasonable person in the position of the consumer would have expected such exclusion, taking into account the contract’s contents, the manner in which it was presented and the circumstances around concluding it. Policy exclusions may have to be drawn to the consumer’s attention. · Insurers will not be allowed to take advantage of the fact that the consumer is unable to understand the terms of the contract being concluded with it as a result of either physical or mental disability, illiteracy, ignorance or inability to understand the language of the contract. · Terms of the policy may be ruled as unfair, unjust or unreasonable if they are excessively one sided, contain terms so adverse to the insured as to be inequitable, or if the consumer was misled by the insurance company. · The terms of the contract must be in writing and in plain language. · Exclusions may still be utilised but the exclusions need to be in writing and in plain language, conspicuously presented to the insured allowing the latter a full opportunity to understand their terms.
· A consumer may insist on quality service, failing which the supplier may be ordered to remedy any defect or to refund a reasonable portion of the price paid for the goods. “Quality service” includes timeous performance and completion of services by the supplier, services performed on a generally expected level of quality and goods that are defect-free.
The biggest issue is service and the lack thereof and lack of answers.
Please see below extract:
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS: SERVICES
The more important insurance services affected by the CPA:
· A policy would be interpreted in favour of the consumer, in the event of ambiguity allowing for more than one reasonable interpretation. This reflects the existing law, but is now an unalterable right. · Any exclusion within the insurance contract would be measured against whether a reasonable person in the position of the consumer would have expected such exclusion, taking into account the contract’s contents, the manner in which it was presented and the circumstances around concluding it. Policy exclusions may have to be drawn to the consumer’s attention. · Insurers will not be allowed to take advantage of the fact that the consumer is unable to understand the terms of the contract being concluded with it as a result of either physical or mental disability, illiteracy, ignorance or inability to understand the language of the contract. · Terms of the policy may be ruled as unfair, unjust or unreasonable if they are excessively one sided, contain terms so adverse to the insured as to be inequitable, or if the consumer was misled by the insurance company. · The terms of the contract must be in writing and in plain language. · Exclusions may still be utilised but the exclusions need to be in writing and in plain language, conspicuously presented to the insured allowing the latter a full opportunity to understand their terms.
· A consumer may insist on quality service, failing which the supplier may be ordered to remedy any defect or to refund a reasonable portion of the price paid for the goods. “Quality service” includes timeous performance and completion of services by the supplier, services performed on a generally expected level of quality and goods that are defect-free.
- The terms of an agreement to supply goods or services may not be unfair, unreasonable and unjust, for example, the terms may not only favour the supplier. Such a term or agreement will be void.
- A consumer has the right to a receipt after paying the supplier for goods or services.
- An agreement between a consumer and a supplier must be in plain language that is easy to understand. A consumer is entitled to a copy of the agreement (Received policy document - nothing relating to article shared above is worded in policies).
The biggest issue is service and the lack thereof and lack of answers.
AR
Andries R's update06 Aug 2019, 16:13
Reviewer Update
Thank you for the response. The link provided does not work. The article does however state that each case will be judged on merit, I will then take the chance that mine be judged on merit. The article also does not mention that the consumer has no right to complain about the institution where the vehicle is being repaired. As stated, it is not suggested the vehicle go to Toyota but pirate parts are made by Bosch also, the owner of the institution stating that the vehicle goes to a less reputable repairer due to the warranty status of the vehicle is also baffling. Decreasing the value of a vehicles market value certainly will not come down to enrichment in regards to the consumer but rather unjustified enrichment for the insurer. Nowhere in a policy does it state that the vehicle becomes the property of the insurer, does that not indicate that I, the owner, have a right to get quotes or to know the status of my vehicle? This reply also does not address the incompetence of the assessment staff at King Price. The vehicle was also ******, not damaged due to and accident.
Please see below extract:
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS: SERVICES
The more important insurance services affected by the CPA:
· A policy would be interpreted in favour of the consumer, in the event of ambiguity allowing for more than one reasonable interpretation. This reflects the existing law, but is now an unalterable right. · Any exclusion within the insurance contract would be measured against whether a reasonable person in the position of the consumer would have expected such exclusion, taking into account the contract’s contents, the manner in which it was presented and the circumstances around concluding it. Policy exclusions may have to be drawn to the consumer’s attention. · Insurers will not be allowed to take advantage of the fact that the consumer is unable to understand the terms of the contract being concluded with it as a result of either physical or mental disability, illiteracy, ignorance or inability to understand the language of the contract. · Terms of the policy may be ruled as unfair, unjust or unreasonable if they are excessively one sided, contain terms so adverse to the insured as to be inequitable, or if the consumer was misled by the insurance company. · The terms of the contract must be in writing and in plain language. · Exclusions may still be utilised but the exclusions need to be in writing and in plain language, conspicuously presented to the insured allowing the latter a full opportunity to understand their terms.
· A consumer may insist on quality service, failing which the supplier may be ordered to remedy any defect or to refund a reasonable portion of the price paid for the goods. “Quality service” includes timeous performance and completion of services by the supplier, services performed on a generally expected level of quality and goods that are defect-free.
The biggest issue is service and the lack thereof and lack of answers.
Please see below extract:
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS: SERVICES
The more important insurance services affected by the CPA:
· A policy would be interpreted in favour of the consumer, in the event of ambiguity allowing for more than one reasonable interpretation. This reflects the existing law, but is now an unalterable right. · Any exclusion within the insurance contract would be measured against whether a reasonable person in the position of the consumer would have expected such exclusion, taking into account the contract’s contents, the manner in which it was presented and the circumstances around concluding it. Policy exclusions may have to be drawn to the consumer’s attention. · Insurers will not be allowed to take advantage of the fact that the consumer is unable to understand the terms of the contract being concluded with it as a result of either physical or mental disability, illiteracy, ignorance or inability to understand the language of the contract. · Terms of the policy may be ruled as unfair, unjust or unreasonable if they are excessively one sided, contain terms so adverse to the insured as to be inequitable, or if the consumer was misled by the insurance company. · The terms of the contract must be in writing and in plain language. · Exclusions may still be utilised but the exclusions need to be in writing and in plain language, conspicuously presented to the insured allowing the latter a full opportunity to understand their terms.
· A consumer may insist on quality service, failing which the supplier may be ordered to remedy any defect or to refund a reasonable portion of the price paid for the goods. “Quality service” includes timeous performance and completion of services by the supplier, services performed on a generally expected level of quality and goods that are defect-free.
- The terms of an agreement to supply goods or services may not be unfair, unreasonable and unjust, for example, the terms may not only favour the supplier. Such a term or agreement will be void.
- A consumer has the right to a receipt after paying the supplier for goods or services.
- An agreement between a consumer and a supplier must be in plain language that is easy to understand. A consumer is entitled to a copy of the agreement (Received policy document - nothing relating to article shared above is worded in policies).
The biggest issue is service and the lack thereof and lack of answers.