UNPROFESSIONAL, INCOMPETENT, INEPT, UNACCEPTABLE

UNPROFESSIONAL, INCOMPETENT, INEPT, UNACCEPTABLE They represent Princeton Group [ Princeton Security ]

Reading the other reviews the common thread is that they appear to use delay tactics to avoid any liability on 3rd party claims. This appears to be common practice as well as their modus operandi when dealing with client claims. There appears to be the same "cut & paste" responses to all queries [ from what I have noted & encountered in my own experience ].

Please see below my email correspondence with them :

Good Day

Please, advise again how you came to your outcome. This process has been dragged out by yourselves for over a month now. You have deliberately attempted to avoid any liability in this matter at every turn & have reverted back with three different outcomes during this period.

Your first feedback - 1st May 2021 2.1 Our insured driver was not the cause of the collision . It is our instruction that the collision was caused by; 2.1.1 You as you collided into insured vehicle as you moved into the turn off lane., that the incident happened on

Your second feedback - 5th May 2021 from Nombulelo Please note that we have relooked at the claim and are liable for your vehicle damages.

Your third feedback - 12 May 2021 2.1 You should have kept a proper lookout, but failed to do so and also failed to take the necessary evasive action to avoid an accident

The third feedback is also inaccurate as the Princeton vehicle came across the three oncoming lanes from behind a taxi. I did take evasive action, I braked & turned to the left but the Princeton vehicle did not brake at all & proceeded to collide with my vehicle & there was no chance of avoidance from my side. The Princeton vehicle, again, did not have right of way. The Princeton driver did not keep a proper lookout for oncoming traffic. Please advise how you can come to the conclusion & apportion any blame to myself as I have right of way in this incident & the Princeton vehicle & driver did not adhere to the rules of the road or observe when crossing over the 3 lanes of traffic ? It is noted that you have changed the outcome in this regard [ in your responses ] on 3 occasions to suit your narrative & avoid full liability.

This process has dragged on for far too long at our inconvenience. The outcomes have been totally inacurate, unprofessional & unacceptable.

Please advise to whom we can escalate this matter as the handling, up until this point, has been incompetent & inept.

AND ANOTHER MAIL I SENT 2 DAYS LATER - & still no response :

Good Day

Please do so because I have noted that the case law you are applying is also flawed & not relevant to the present matter.

4. In support of our assessment of the above apportionment of liability we refer to the following case law which is relevant to the facts of the present matter:

RIGHT TURN – AGAINST DRIVER TURNING RIGHT The majority of cases are of the view that the driver turning right needs to ensure that the following traffic has observed and responded to his signal to turn right (see Brown vs Santam 1979 4 SA 370 W, Potgieter vs AEG Telefunkun 1977 4 SA 3 O, James vs Fletcher 1973 1 SA 687 RA, Boots Co vs Somerset West Municipality 1993 SA 216 (C)).

Please note that I am not the following trafic [ i was the oncoming vehicle ]& the video provided also shows that the driver of the Ford did not observe or signal to turn right.

These guys are a sham & do Renasa's dirty work. They should be ashamed of themselves.

No Feedback from - Nombulelo Ndlovu, Eva Goremusandu, Vanessa Kgase