Prime’s Breach of Contract and ******** Refusal to Authorise repairs under section 4.4 of the T&C

I am formally lodging this complaint regarding Prime’s refusal to authorise an OEM windscreen replacement, despite clear and binding contractual obligations contained in my policy wording and the Automotive Aftermarket Guidelines.

My policy explicitly states under Section 4.4 that while my vehicle remains under manufacturer warranty:

4.4.1: The insurer must use original (OEM) parts.

4.4.2: Non-OEM parts may only be used with my consent.

I have not consented to the use of non-OEM glass. Prime’s refusal to authorise OEM parts therefore constitutes a direct, material breach of the policy contract.

Prime’s insistence on alternative glass further disregards the substantial risk of voiding or compromising key manufacturer warranty systems, including ADAS calibration, sensor and camera alignment, water-sealing integrity, and structural safety, the very risks that Clause 4.4 is designed to safeguard against.

Unprofessional Conduct & Failure to Respond

The consultant assigned to my claim behaved unprofessionally and incorrectly stated that the policy “only allows alternative glass.” When I requested the applicable terms and conditions, the document provided contradicted the consultant’s assertions and instead confirmed my contractual rights under Clause 4.4. The consultant also claimed I am “only covered for alternative glass,” yet a thorough review of my policy confirms that this claim is false and unsupported by any clause.

On 2 December, I sent a clear, detailed email requesting escalation and clarity. Despite a commitment to respond within 24 hours, no reply was ever provided. I also received a promise of a follow-up call that never occurred. This conduct reflects a clear failure to engage transparently and fairly, in breach of Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) principles.

Approved Quote Included the Windscreen

The repair quotation approved by both the panel beaters and Prime explicitly included the windscreen replacement, alongside other parts already fulfilled, including an OEM IQ light. Prime’s sudden reversal and refusal to honour this previously approved repair further undermines confidence in the insurer’s commitment to contractual compliance and fair treatment.

Conclusion

Prime’s refusal to approve OEM glass constitutes:

A direct violation of Section 4.4 of the policy

Non-compliance with the Automotive Aftermarket Guidelines

A breach of Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) principles

A reversal of the insurer’s own approved repair assessment

I hereby request an immediate reassessment, full authorisation for an OEM windscreen, and written confirmation that repairs will be carried out strictly in accordance with the policy and manufacturer warranty requirements.

Should this matter not be resolved urgently and in full compliance with the policy, I will escalate the dispute to the Ombudsman for Short-Term Insurance (OSTI) without further delay.