Service Performed Without Authorization, Ongoing Vehicle Concern Ignored and No Follow-Up

**Service Performed Without Authorization, Ongoing Vehicle Concern Ignored and No Follow-Up** PEUGEOT GEORGE YORK STR

I own a Citroën C3 that was purchased in March 2025 and is covered by a service plan. This year was due to be the vehicle's third and final service.

Last year, when the vehicle went in for its previous service, I was advised by a staff member not to leave the next service too long after the due date because service plans sometimes reject claims if the service is done late.

A few weeks ago, while driving, a spanner warning light and other orange warning lights appeared on my dashboard. Although the lights disappeared after I restarted the vehicle, I was concerned. In addition, both my sons had commented that the automatic gearbox did not seem to be functioning correctly and that the gears appeared to be "jumping".

This gearbox concern was not a new issue. I had raised concerns about the gearbox during previous services and was repeatedly told that there was nothing wrong with it. However, the problem persisted, which is why I was particularly concerned when the warning lights appeared.

Because of these concerns, I arranged for the vehicle to be taken to the dealership. My son was initially informed that it was too early for a service. He then explained the gearbox issue, and the vehicle was booked in.

Later that afternoon, I received a call informing me that the vehicle had already been serviced, but that the service plan had declined to pay because the service was done too early. I was then informed that I would be responsible for paying approximately R3,400.

My complaint is not that the service plan rejected the claim. My complaint is that the dealership proceeded with the service without first confirming whether the service plan would cover the cost and without obtaining my authorization should the claim be declined.

If there was any uncer*****y regarding payment, the dealership should have confirmed this before carrying out the service. Had I been informed that I would personally be liable for the cost, I could have made an informed decision about whether to proceed with the service immediately or wait until the appropriate time.

When I explained that one of the reasons the vehicle was brought in was because of the gearbox problem, which could potentially lead to a very costly repair if left unresolved, I was simply told that this was not part of the service plan and that it was a maintenance and diagnostic matter. While I understand that diagnostics may be handled separately, this completely missed the point. Had I been informed beforehand that I would be liable for the service cost, I could have chosen to have only the gearbox issue investigated rather than having a service performed that was ultimately not covered by the service plan.

I was subsequently informed that there is apparently a fault with the stop-start system and that a replacement part would need to be ordered. However, despite now being more than a week later, I have received absolutely no feedback regarding the part, whether it has been ordered, when it is expected to arrive, or what the next steps will be.

When I collected the vehicle and raised my concerns, the staff member who had booked the vehicle in was dismissive and repeatedly responded with, "But I told you it was too early." In my opinion, that completely misses the issue. Being told that it is too early for a service is not the same as authorizing a service at my own expense.

Before leaving the dealership, a manager approached me, introduced himself and asked me to explain the entire situation from the beginning. After listening to my concerns, he assured me that he would investigate the matter and contact me the following Monday.

It has now been more than a week later, and I have not received any feedback whatsoever regarding his investigation, the stop-start fault, the replacement part that allegedly needs to be ordered, or the concerns I raised.

I am extremely disappointed by the lack of communication, the poor customer service, the dismissive attitude I experienced, the failure to properly address an issue that I had previously reported, and the fact that chargeable work was carried out without my authorization. At no point was I given the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether I wanted to proceed with a service at my own expense or only have the gearbox fault investigated.

I would appreciate a response explaining why the service was performed before confirming payment responsibility, why my previous concerns about the gearbox were repeatedly dismissed, and why the promised follow-up and feedback have still not taken place.

Mrs Marais