Tempest ********

, I had reserved a vehicle with Tempest Car Hire (Tempest) under reservation number TORTA***RS8 and, by agreement, the vehicle was to be in my care for my use from 26 April 2018 to 30 April 2018. It is further common cause that on 29 April 2018, I was involved in a vehicle accident while driving this vehicle, resulting in damages to the vehicle.

The circumstances surrounding the accident, in brief, are that another vehicle collided with the back of the vehicle I was driving, thereby causing me to collide with another vehicle in front of me. A total of five (5) vehicles were involved in the accident. The driver of the vehicle responsible for the rear-end collision provided his details and advised that his insurance would be in touch in order to resolve the matter. The full details of the accident as well as the accident report number have been communicated to Tempest.

Let me first start by stating my utter dismay and discontent with the manner in which this matter has been handled by Tempest. Not only has Tempest completely failed to effectively and timeously communicate with me after this incident, Tempest has now sought to retrospectively impute culpability and claim damages from me for this unfortunate incident, based on a purported breach of contract. Furthermore, I have since been subjected to calls and emails requesting me to make urgent payment and disconcerting interactions with persons claiming to be debt collectors intimidating and harassing me for payment from the very day that the invoice was sent to me.

As you are aware, I had taken out the ‘super waiver’ cover option, which is intended to, amongst others, cover me in the event of an accident. It is therefore my understanding that this waiver would “kick in” in such instances to offer protection to the consumer as intended. I had specifically inquired about this when reporting the accident and I was initially notified that I would not be liable for the damages to the vehicle. It is further noted that whilst I was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident Tempest, as the legal owner of the vehicle, reserves the right to lodge a claim with the third party insurance company for the damages to the vehicle. It was on this basis therefore, that I did not lodge a claim for damages.

When the accident occurred, I immediately contacted Tempest to report the accident and further requested that an accredited towing company be dispatched to tow the vehicle to safety, as it was not drivable. I further requested another vehicle from the company in order to continue my journey to Johannesburg as the accident had occurred in the Free State. At no stage during these interactions did the company notify me of any breach of contract. In fact, even upon me returning the vehicle to Tempest, I was not informed of any breach and was instead given the impression that all was well.

On 30 April 2018, I was contacted by one of your agents, Ms Angela Windvoel, to obtain further details about the accident and further to obtain my banking details in order process a refund for the additional amount paid in order to procure the second vehicle. It must be noted that the agent made this call after the return of the vehicle and subsequent to the completion of the accident documentation at your offices. Again, no mention was made of a possible breach of contract. In fact, the only impression created was that there was a refund due to me. I did not receive any further communication from Tempest in this regard. After a protracted wait for further communication, I decided to call to follow-up on 11 May 2018 It was only during this conversation that an agent informed me that I had allegedly breached the provisions of the contract a few days prior to the accident and would therefore no longer be covered under the ‘super waiver’ cover. The alleged breach is said to have occurred on 27 April 2018, whilst the accident occurred on 29 April 2018.

While I appreciate and respect the contractual terms and conditions and my contractual obligations with regard thereto, I must state my disagreement with the manner in which this has been enforced. Contractual terms should not be app**** retrospectively or arbitrarily and should certainly not be used merely as a tool to deny a consumer benefits that they otherwise would have been entitled to. Not only is the alleged breach completely unrelated to the accident giving rise to the claim, the alleged breach is said to have occurred on 27 April 2018, a few days before the date of the accident. Tempest therefore, would have been aware of the alleged breach prior to the accident and should have informed me of such. Instead, Tempest continued to give the impression that the contract was valid during our interactions. In fact, Tempest even acted further by providing another vehicle to me after the accident had occurred. Tempest further called to request my bank details in order to process a refund, based on our mutual understanding of the existence of the ‘super waiver’ cover. Again, there was no mention of a breach of contract.

It is also worth noting that the accident was caused by another vehicle and was not through any fault of mine, nor could I have taken any measures to avoid it. (This can be corroborated by other witnesses on the scene as well as the police report). It is therefore perplexing to me why Tempest would seek to recover damages from me and not from the 3rd party responsible for the accident; further, why, based on events unrelated to the accident, I should no longer be entitled to the ‘super waiver’ cover. Why I am being punished for someone else colliding into me, when third party insurance cover and the ‘super waiver’ cover are specifically intended for this purpose? Why did Tempest not inform me that I was in breach of contract on 27 April 2018 and immediately request that I return the vehicle? Why did this ‘fact’ only come to light more than a week after the accident, after I had already been told that I was covered? Why did you even allow me to take another car if I had already breached the initial contract? What is the point of the ‘super waiver’ cover if it still does not cover me in the event of an accident and Tempest can rely on unrelated prior events to deny me cover after the fact? I would appreciate a response to these questions and a detailed explanation of why I was misled and unfairly treated by Tempest.

Based on the facts highlighted above, it is evident that Tempest did not act in a manner that is ethical, promotes fair business practices and ensures the protection of consumer rights, thereby causing prejudice to me. It is apparent that Tempest, for the duration of the contract and even after its cessation, continued to create the impression that a valid contract existed between the parties and should therefore be estopped from relying on the alleged breach as a basis for cancellation of the ‘super waiver’ cover. Tempest has attempted to retrospectively and unfairly impute a breach of contract after the cessation of the contract merely to deprive me of the protection that I otherwise would have been afforded as part of the ‘super waiver’ cover that I specifically paid for and am entitled to.

I therefore request that Tempest review this decision and revert with details of how you intend to resolve this matter in a manner that is reasonable, equitable and in line with the principles of the Consumer Protection Act.

Now these people are sending their lawyers and have blacklisted me