DOTSURE INSURANCE & NETSTAR CONNECTION (A CASE OF DISRESPECTING THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT & THE NATIONAL CREDIT ACT)

Let us start by pointing out the obvious; that the business conduct/affairs of DOTSURE INSURANCE & ALTECH NESTAR are regulated by the National Credit Act(NCA) & the National Consumer Protection Act (NCPA), this therefore factually dictates that these two companies cannot conduct their business in a manner that contradicts the said acts in any shape or form.

In my case, the two companies acted in a manner that contradicts these acts therefore subjecting me to ******** business practices. The chain of events are summarily as follows; 1. On 1 August 2017 I entered into a Motor Vehicle insurance agreement with Dotsure insurance (which I ended up cancelling). Amongst others the insurance policy/ agreement between myself and Dotsure entailed the following clauses/conditions/terms. You will have no cover if you don't comply with these requirements. It is a requirement of this policy that the OAKHURST SMART-BOX is fitted to your 2010 VOLKSWAGEN POLO 1.4 COMFORTLINE 5DR (TBA) within 14 days from the start of this policy. You must send us the Vehicle Inspection Certificate and proof of the fitment of the Oakhurst Smart-Box within 14 days from the start of this policy. You need to have a Oakhurst Smart-Box installed within 14 days in your 2010 VOLKSWAGEN POLO 1.4 COMFORTLINE 5DR (TBA) on a month-to-month contract with ALTECH NETSTAR which will assist with vehicle monitoring and tracking. The cost of the fitment and the monthly subscription is included in your monthly premium. Dotsure Smart-Box - Costs There will be no cost for the fitment of the Dotsure Smart-Box and the monthly service fee is included in your monthly premium. As long as your vehicle is insured through us, no additional costs concerning the Dotsure Smart-Box will be payable by you. Should you cancel your policy with us, you will however be liable to continue paying Altech Netstar for the applicable retail monthly tracking subscription which is subject to a 36 MONTH contract.

2. The above mentioned conditions of the DOTSURE INSURANCE policy compel the consumer (ME) to enter into an additional contract, or what is called a SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT.

3. Let us now venture into the LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT PROHIBITS the above mentioned policy clause of DOTSURE INSURANCE & ALTECH NETSTAR.

3.1 The NCPA states, (CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT) "Prohibited transactions, agreements, terms or conditions 51. (1) A supplier must not make a transaction or agreement subject to any term or condition if— (e) it requires the consumer to enter into a supplementary agreement” ………….

My assertion is that DOTSURE INSURANCE required consumers (MYSELF in particular) to enter into supplementary agreements, namely the ALTECH NETSTAR tracker agreement/contract, which forms a part of the INSURANCE agreement.

3.2 The conduct of compelling consumers to enter into supplementary agreements is discredited by legislation, in the case between NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR v AL**** CAPITAL (PTY) LTD, Case Number: NCT/***: The NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL held that, Al**** Capital, under its “pawn it and still drive it” scheme, required or induced consumers to conclude a rental agreement and the voluntary surrender agreement (“Consent to Voluntary Surrender”), which form part of the credit agreement. These are supplementary agreements prohibited by the NCA.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the Respondent (AL**** CAPITAL) was in contravention of the following provisions of the National Credit Act: section 90(1) and 91(1) of the NCA by concluding supplementary agreements and requiring consumers to sign documents containing prohibited provisions;

I therefore maintain that the provision that consumers must enter into a supplementary contract with ALTECH NETSTAR is ******** and thus unenforceable as it lacks legality.

4. Given that the ALTECH NETSTAR contract is conceived under ******** practices and at the ticket of infringing consumer rights, consequently it is not leagal & not binding. The understanding in our law dictates that, An agreement is considered lawful unless there is a statute or a common law rule that makes the contract void. Generally, a contract will be void if it contravenes a statute. If a statute expressly provides that the contract will be void unless certain requirements are first met, the absence of those requirements will render the contract void and the parties would not be able to enforce that contract.

The ALTHECH NETSTAR CONTARCT, is a supplementary agreement and has no force of law as it contradicts both the NCA & the NCPA. However, ALTECH NETSTAR, in its defence relies on the argument that I agreed to the contract (thus enforceable). Countering this argument, I would like to point out as a fact of law that CONSENT DOES NOT LEGITIMISE ******** CONDUCT OR IT DOES NOT LEGALISE A CRIME (such reasoning is informed by State v Sean Davison case).

5. In addition, taking case law into account; United Reformed Church, De Doorns v President of the Republic of South Africa: “The corresponding case saw the High Court of South Africa; Western Cape Division find a clause in a contract to be ******* for being against public policy. The clause in question was found to contravene the values of the Constitution and failed to address the unequal bargaining positions of the relevant parties”.

From this legal perspective, it is absolute that contracts/agreements or provisions thereof, that contradict the law/statute are *******. It follows to reason that allowing ******* contracts or provisions thereof, will in effect fail to show that CRIME DOESN’T PAY, AND THAT EVERYONE IS EQUAL WHEN IT COMES TO THE RULE OF LAW.

6. ASTONISHINGLY, DOTSURE INSURANCE STILL LISTS ME AS ITS CLIENT OR DEBTOR IN THE CREDIT BUREAU DATABASE (TRANSUNION). THEY (DOTSURE) CARRY ON BEING DISHONEST STATING THAT I OWE THEM MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS OF R 539.00. IT MUST BE FACTUALLY NOTED THAT I CANCELLED MY SHORT TERM CAR INSURANCE WITH DOTSURE IN 2017 ALREADY. CAN THEY (DOTSURE) JUST DO THE RIGHT THING AS THEY ARE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO DO. IT SEEMS THAT LEGAL COMPLIANCE AND RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW IS NOT DOTSURE’S STRONG PIONT.

7. I can go on about how your (DOTSURE’S) conduct deprives us consumers, the benefit of cheaper prices as it automatically subjects us consumers to the already priced (*******) Altech Netstar contract without being given a real opportunity/option to test the market for a cheaper price for the tracker service, this also contravenes the NCA. I WILL TAKE MY COMPLAINT TO THE NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR AS WELL, SO THAT THE ALTECH NETSTAR CONTRACT BE NULLIFIED, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY TO SEEK REFUND UNDER THE SAID PROHIBITED SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT. OTHER CONSUMERS SHOULD ALSO OBSERVE AS WELL.