TCF Failure, Misled, Excluded and lack of accountability

<div>I chose Naked Insurance because of their tech savvy and ease of use app, but my experience revealed serious gaps in their accountability, transparency, and respect for customers. They great with advertising but suck at adhering to TCF principles to say the least. I dealt with ****&nbsp; there service advisor regarding my vehicle, in which they initially approved for a rear bumper replacement oppose to a repair, and the panel beater confirmed in writing that the part was on back order and they proceed to repair my existing bumper as a interim repair. I sent this to Naked before paying my excess. However, the bumper was never fitted, never billed, and I was never informed that the repair scope had changed. Naked later claimed the panel beater found “additional damage” during stripping. But strangely, the final invoice was thousands of rands lower than the original quote — and key parts like the bumper, spoiler, and VPS were missing. Labour and admin charges increased, suggesting the cost was absorbed elsewhere. Here’s what’s deeply concerning: They violated several Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) outcomes: • Outcome 3 – Clear and timely communication: I was never told about the change in scope since this had a material effect on the final outcome. I only found out much later based on my own enquiry! • Outcome 5 – Service aligned with expectations: I expected a bumper replacement based on what was approved and confirmed — not a silent switch to a lower-value repair. • Outcome 6 – No barriers to redress: Instead of addressing the issue, Naked told me to speak to the panel beater myself — despite the claim falling under their responsibility. Even more disappointing, when I raised valid concerns and shared written evidence, Naked did not act objectively. They re**** entirely on the panel beater’s billing — ignoring the assurance that was given to me by the same repairer, and offering no meaningful explanation for why the bumper was never billed and change of scope. To date, I`m left more confused due to vague answers, therefore can logically assume the change of scope was approved and Naked failed to inform me was financially motivated, this is due to comparing the initial and final invoice, Naked saved money and the panel beater increased profit on labour costs.</div>