1 reviews | Active since Oct 2011

14 May 2026, 10:02

I am submitting a formal complaint and dispute regarding the handling of my claim QWTY065992CLM under my Bumper2Bumper policy QWTY199915POL

Item: M-Sure Financial Services
Rating: 1
Author: lerato M

Formal Complaint & Dispute of Benefit Limit – Policy QWTY199915POL | Claim No. QWTY065992CLM (Radio/Entertainment System)

Helpful (0)

Replies (3)

M-Sure Financial Services's replyOfficial

14 May 2026, 10:26

Hello Lerato Moeketsi
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience and unsatisfactory experience you encountered.
We are currently investigating your concerns and will revert to you via email.
Thank you
M-Sure Team

M-Sure Financial Services's reply14 May 2026, 10:26

Official

lerato M's updateReviewer Update

14 May 2026, 10:51

Subject: Formal Complaint & Dispute of Benefit Limit – Policy QWTY199915POL | Claim No. QWTY065992CLM (Radio/Entertainment System)

To: ***
Cc: ***; ***

Dear M‑Sure Complaints Team,

I am submitting a formal complaint and dispute regarding the handling of my claim QWTY065992CLM under my Bumper2Bumper policy QWTY199915POL.

1) Unreasonable approval amount

I have been advised that an amount of R2,500.00 has been authorised for the repair of my vehicle’s DVD/Entertainment (radio) system.

This amount is unreasonably low and not aligned with the actual value of the component, considering that the original manufacturer-fitted infotainment system for a Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross costs approximately R40,000 to replace.

The approved amount therefore creates a significant financial shortfall, which is being unfairly placed on the client.

2) Covered component under the policy

Your policy wording confirms that the entertainment system (radio/CD unit) is covered as an original manufacturer-fitted component.

My radio system is factory fitted and not an aftermarket modification, and therefore clearly qualifies as a covered component under the policy.

3) Concern regarding vehicle classification vs benefit provided

When you request full vehicle details such as make, model, VIN and registration, this process is expected to ensure that the correct plan and appropriate level of cover are app**** based on the specific vehicle.

However, the outcome of this claim raises a critical concern:

Did the categorisation of my vehicle truly reflect the standard, value, and specification of the vehicle and its components?

Because based on the current outcome, it clearly does not.

A benefit of R2,500 for a manufacturer-fitted infotainment system in a vehicle of this nature does not logically align with the vehicle category, nor the expectations created when such detailed vehicle information is collected and assessed.

4) Poor claims handling and delayed response

I would also like to formally raise a concern regarding the handling of this claim process:

The claim was initially logged on 29 April 2026 with Sfiso Mbonane by the dealership
No update, response, or feedback was provided to myself or the dealership during this period
I only received feedback after I proactively followed up today (13 May 2026)

This lack of communication is unacceptable and does not reflect professional claims handling standards.

5) Unacceptable customer service experience

Furthermore, I must highlight that the attitude of the consultant during my follow-up call was disappointing and unprofessional.

Instead of acknowledging the delay and the concerns raised:

The consultant appeared dismissive, and
Did not recognise any issue or shortcoming in how the claim was handled

This further increased my frustration and reflects a lack of accountability and customer care.

6) Impact on customer expectations

I specifically took out this “Bumper-to-Bumper” cover to avoid financial stress and frustration in the event of vehicle component failure.

However, this experience has:

Removed the confidence and peace of mind expected from such a policy, and
Reintroduced the very frustrations that the policy was meant to eliminate

As a customer, it is unacceptable to still face significant out-of-pocket exposure, while also experiencing poor service and delayed response.

7) Transparency and fairness concerns

While I acknowledge that the policy allows for benefit limits and potential shortfalls, the gap between R2,500 and ±R40,000 is excessive.

This raises serious concerns regarding:

Fairness of the benefit structure
Transparency at the point of sale
Potential misleading expectations created by the term “Bumper-to-Bumper” cover

8) Formal request for resolution

I request the following to be provided in writing:

Confirmation of my policy plan and how was it structured to end up with R200 cover for the kid of car I’m driving (Plan N / A / B / C)
The criteria used to categorise my vehicle under that plan
The specific policy clause and benefit table entry used to justify the R2,500 limit
A full review and reconsideration of the authorised amount, considering this is a high-value OEM component
A formal explanation for the delay in communication from 29 April 2026 to 13 May 2026
Clarification on the service standards app**** in handling my claim
And way forward on how this will be resolved

9) Notice of escalation

Should this matter not be resolved satisfactorily, I will proceed with escalation in line with the policy complaints process, including referral to:

Centriq Insurance Complaints Department
National Financial Ombud Scheme (NFO)

I expect a formal written response addressing all of the above concerns, including both the claim decision review and the service-related issues raised.

Kind regards,
Lepota Moeketsi

Policy No: QWTY199915POL
Claim No: QWTY065992CLM
Vehicle: Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross

lerato M's update14 May 2026, 10:51

Reviewer Update