****med by Pineapple's 3rd party supplier

I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding the recent incident involving roadside assistance provided under my Pineapple insurance policy. I have been a policyholder with Pineapple for over two years and have never previously lodged a claim. Unfortunately, my recent experience has been extremely disappointing, both in terms of the service provided and the manner in which my case has been handled.

On [insert date], I requested roadside assistance due to a mechanical failure in my vehicle. Specifically, my car’s clutch stopped engaging. However, the agent I spoke with was not only unhelpful but exhibited a significant attitude problem, which made communication exceedingly difficult. Despite my efforts to obtain the necessary assistance, the agent’s behavior was both unprofessional and obstructive.

Pineapple eventually arranged for a third-party towing service, at which point I was informed by this third-party supplier that I was only covered for a towing service within a 60-kilometer radius. This was in direct contradiction to the policy schedule I had reviewed, which clearly states I am covered for up to 100 kilometers per towing service. Under the circumstances, I had no choice but to agree to the additional charges, given the urgency of the situation.

Upon reviewing my policy, I immediately contacted Pineapple to address this discrepancy. Unfortunately, this interaction involved an agent named Siphosethu, whose approach to customer service was entirely unsatisfactory. Siphosethu directed me to contact Pineapple’s third-party supplier directly to request a refund for the additional charges incurred. This is wholly inappropriate and unreasonable, as my contractual relationship is with Pineapple, not with their third-party supplier. It is Pineapple’s responsibility to resolve this issue, not mine.

I find it troubling that Pineapple is placing the onus on me, the policyholder, to pursue a refund from a third-party supplier with whom I have no direct contractual relationship. Furthermore, Pineapple has breached the terms of the policy by failing to honor the 100-kilometer towing coverage explicitly stated in my policy schedule.

I hereby formally request:

An immediate refund for the additional towing charges incurred beyond the false 60kilometer limit, in accordance with the terms of my policy.

An explanation as to why I was misinformed by Pineapple’s third-party supplier regarding the coverage limit.

A formal response addressing the unprofessional conduct of Pineapple’s agents, particularly Siphosethu, and the steps Pineapple will take to ensure this does not occur again.

Please be advised that, should this matter not be resolved promptly and satisfactorily, I will have no option but to escalate the issue to the appropriate regulatory bodies and consider further legal action for breach of contract and failure to provide the services I am entitled to under my insurance policy.

Sincerely, Olwethu