Formal Complaint Regarding Forced Sale and Unfair Contract Terms

I am lodging a formal complaint against Pineapple Insurance regarding the compulsory inclusion of a tracking device as a prerequisite for an insurance policy and the subsequent unfair contract terms associated with the device.

In August 2023, upon purchasing my vehicle, I acquired a comprehensive insurance policy from Pineapple Insurance. During the policy application process, I was explicitly informed that the installation of a specific tracking device, provided by Tracker, a Pineapple nominated provider, was mandatory for the policy to be issued. This requirement was enforced even after I stated my preference to use an existing or alternative tracking solution, with the agent advising that the device was an inseparable "part of the package."

I cancelled the comprehensive insurance policy with Pineapple Insurance approximately one year ago in October 2024 due to a significant premium increase on a depreciating asset. Following the cancellation of the insurance policy, the separate tracking company began sending monthly statements for the device, which I am no longer actively using in connection with the insurance.

My primary concern is the anti-competitive and potentially ******** nature of this arrangement. I have been informed by the tracking company that the agreement for the device is subject to a 3-year fixed term and that early cancellation or removal would incur a cancellation fee that is substantially equivalent to the remaining monthly subscriptions.

Violation of Consumer Rights and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) This situation appears to be in direct contravention of the Consumer Protection Act (Act 68 of 2008), specifically:

Section 13: Prohibited Conduct (Tying Arrangement): The mandatory linking of the insurance policy (the desired product) with the tracking device (the separate, unwanted service) constitutes a prohibited "tying" or "bundling" arrangement. Pineapple Insurance leveraged its dominant position to force the sale of a secondary service, limiting my right to choose an alternative or decline the service entirely, which is explicitly disallowed under the CPA.

Section 14: Expiry and Renewal of Fixed-Term Agreements: A fixed-term agreement with such punitive cancellation penalties restricts a consumer's right to cancel an agreement. While the CPA permits reasonable cancellation fees, a penalty that is "substantially equivalent" to the entire remaining balance is arguably unreasonable and unconscionable.

Section 48: Unfair, Unreasonable or Unjust Contract Terms: This arrangement places the consumer in a disadvantaged position by locking them into a long-term contract for a service they only required as a prerequisite for another service (the insurance), which they have now legitimately cancelled.

Demand for Resolution I request that Pineapple Insurance takes immediate action to rectify this situation by:

Acknowledging and confirming that the compulsory nature of the tracking device was a term of their insurance contract.

Facilitating the immediate and penalty-free cancellation of the associated tracking device contract and removal of the said device.

Ensuring that the debt collection process initiated by the tracking company is immediately suspended and the alleged "debt" is cleared from my name.

I expect a response and a concrete plan of action within 10 business days. Should this matter not be resolved satisfactorily and in line with my rights under the Consumer Protection Act, I reserve the right to escalate this complaint to the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA), the Ombudsman for Short-Term Insurance (OSTI), and the National Consumer Commission (NCC).