PW
Paul W
Active since Oct 2017
17
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
17 reviews25 months ago
Empty "full" cans .....a packaging problem?
Just wrote another similar review on schweppes. What is it about getting six packs of empty or half empty cans of Tonic water? They clearly use the same packaging company and clearly something is not right! To their credit both have replaced defective products but I've just ended up with empty cans from both again. And a gripe about both....I've looked for customer service email addresses and nothing obvious pops up. The web sites should have a contact email front and centre...
0 replies
25 months ago
Empty cans!
Tough to rate. Buy their products regularly and have no complaints per se but have had issues with empty cans in the packs of 6 twice now. Contacted them before but can't find their contact details. Perhaps they can reach out.....
53 replies
27 months ago
Samsung make the right noises but fail to deliver
I bought a Samsung French door fridge for the integrated sodastream about 3 years ago. Immediately I noticed that randomly the dispenser starts to cycle through the intensity settings and won't dispenser water. This can last for 15 minutes or longer. No rhyme or reason. I complained to Samsung and after much deliberation they finally conceded the problem and replaced the door - the implication being faulty electronics/control. Only this did not resolve the issue. So I contacted Samsung again, only to be told the fridge was no longer under guarantee and that any work would be on my account I had some lengthy discussions with Samsung about the latent defect in this machine, saying this was still their problem. After escalating this I was assured they'd come back with a solution. Nothing after months of waiting Has anyone else had this problem? If I hadn't paid a fortune for the fridge I'd probably be more relaxed about this, but Samsung need to own this problem. I suspect a software/design fault is the cause.
278 replies
28 months ago
King Price low premiums come at a cost. Beware
In summary. Avoid them and go to a company that is transparent about how they pay out a car loss claim. King Price claim they pay out retail value on a vehicle. Absolutely NOT true. I bought a Hyundai H100 2006 for 120 000. ****** 6 months later. KING Price claim retail value at 54 000! It is IMPOSSIBLE to buy one at that price. Just do a search of trade and private and you'll see ALL prices above 100 000. Their claim is simply not true By way on contrast, I've bought a new bakkie and insured with Budget. I specifically asked what they pay out. Retail. I paid 120 000. They value it at 129 000. No nonsense retail number a la King Price. So just avoid the low premiums offered by King Price. Have your car ****** and you'll not be able to buy an equivalent. Terrible.
316 replies
29 months ago
It's all in the small print- beware!
When one asks an insurer to insure your car, what do you think you're actually insuring for? Say you have a 2006 model, you've just bought it for R100 000 and you ask for a quote and accept it. Imagine the vehicle is ****** the next day. What do expect to be paid out? Well, naively I thought I was going to paid the amount needed to make me whole I.e I'd be able to go out and buy a another 2006 model. WRONG! Especially with King Price. Their business model is to induce you to insure with them through low premiums. How do they ensure low premiums vs their competitors. Well, the include a clause on "insured sum" which is a fraction of the real value of the vehicle. So in the case above, you insure a vehicle whose market price is R100 000. But they put in your contract an insured value of half, yes half, that amount. So if the vehicle is ****** they can simply invoke the insured value clause and pay you half. I was an idiot. Outsurance, with whom I have had dealings before, quoted a slightly higher monthly premium. But when I had another vehicle ****** in the past they paid out the market value I.e what I needed to be paid to buy an equivalent vehicle in the open market. So DO NOT FALL for the low premiums of King Price. They are lower because they are actually not insuring the replacement value of the vehicle. I believe this is a deliberate misrepresentation on their behalf, and I'm tsking this up with the regulatory authorities and am planning legal action against them.
484 replies
67 months ago
Hellopeter needs a dose of their own medicine
Well. Hellopeter claims to be a portal for reporting poor service etc etc. Which makes their unwillingness to publish my report on what I believe is illegal commission calculations in the short term insurance industry difficult to fathom. They removed my piece but have yet to give me a reason why. I've written to them to ask why, and still nothing. Maybe they need to drink some of their own medicine! Still perplexed.
53 replies
68 months ago
Are commission calculations a rip-off?
I'm pretty sure that Hollard's calculation of commission has to be wrong. This is a long running saga that I've reported to the regulator (anybody wants the correspondence contact me). This is simple arithmetic, unless I'm missing something very simple.... See below, but my contention is that the regulator refuses to sanction insurers like Hillard who are in effect giving brokers a 25% commission which is in contravention of the law (max of 20%). There is also a lot of smoke and mirrors on this by the industry - my ex broker had the audacity to claim that the law impells him to charge the statutory max commission of 20,% This is my reply to the regulator who yet again claimed the commission calculation was correct _-------_------------- Sorry but your maths is wrong. The way Hollard justified this via my broker was as follows: 1) premium payable by me R1000 2) commission on this is 20% i.e R200 Exactly what you've just said. But this is logically and mathematically wrong! Look at this another way via some basic arithmetic: 1) my broker charges me X 2) following your logic, and Hollard's, the commission charged is 20% of this i.e. 0.2*X 3) it follows that Hollard must have charged X - 0.2 X for the act of insuring me. I.e 0.8X 4) following 3 , the commission rate is 0.2X/0.8X. I was charged 0.2X on a insurance event that cost 0.8X. The logic has to be so. 5) so following 4, the effective commission is 0.2/0.8 which is my maths is correct is 25%. QED I'm sorry but logically this is the ONLY way this can be calculated, and under the Act one needs to value the benefit I e the insurance itself, and then add the commission to this event, to arrive at the total premium paid by the client. Remember, the R1000 number you quote is made up of two components, the insurance itself and the premium on it. Logically you cannot work back from the total to commission amount because then you are paying commission on commission. As I've stated in previous correspondence, this is a con. Basically the industry is charging an effective 25% and that's prohibited by law. You guys need to enforce the law. I've copied in amaBhungane and I hope they'll take this up to. It's illegal and a ripoff of the consumer. Period! Regards Paul Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 9:49, Marrelie Victor <Marrelie.Victor@fsca.co.za> wrote: Dear Mr. Walker. The calculations are indeed correct. It is important to understand that the “premium” is the gross premium payable to an insurer. The Short-Term Insurance Act defines premium as follows: Premium is defined as “in respect of a- (a) registered insurer, means the consideration given or to be given in return for an undertaking to provide policy benefits;” So if an amount (premium) of R1000 is payable to an insurer, the maximum commission payable to a broker is R200 (i.e. 20% of R1000). You are welcome to pursue the matter further in the manner you see fit should you not agree with our stance. Regards, Marrelie Victor Manager: Insurers & Retirement Fund Benefit Administrators Supervision Tel: 012 367 7179 Fax: 012 346 6873 Email: marrelie.victor@fsca.co.za Website: www.fsca.co.za FSCA email signature-01-01 From: Paul Walker <paulwalker001@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 9:23 AM To: Pulane Kareli <Pulane.Kareli@fsca.co.za> Cc: Marrelie Victor <Marrelie.Victor@fsca.co.za> Subject: Re: Paul Walker Complaint - Hollard Commission Thanks for your reply. But I'm sorry what you say makes no sense at all. Maths does NOT lie, and the maths is flawed. Please send me a calculation of how they work out commission. If not I will take this up not only in the media but I will examine my constitutional rights and pursue this further. Sorry but you are simply wrong. The maths does NOT work. Regards Paul Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 8:55, Pulane Kareli <Pulane.Kareli@fsca.co.za> wrote: Dear Paul, Your Complaint against Hollard Insurance Company Limited (Hollard) refers. Your complaint against the Insurer was two-fold, and has been summarised as follows: Hollard is overcharging on commission; Swiss Sure is misrepresenting to their clients that they are obliged to charge 20% under law. Pertaining to the 1st espect of your complaint, our Office engaged our Specialist Support Division regarding the calculations used by Hollard in calculating the commission due to Financial Services Providers (FSPs) and were advised as follows: Hollard’s commission calculation is correct. Premiums is the “gross premium payable by the insurer, and includes the amounts for any outsourcing services, including commission”. In conclusion, The way that Hollard calculates the commission, and allow for it in their premium basis, is indeed correct. Given the provisions of the Act, it would also be the way that all insurers calculate commission. 2. Your compliant against Swiss Sure was dealt with by our colleagues in the FAIS Department. Our Office is still awaiting a full review that Hollard is conducting on their own commission. We will, however, be closing this case. Regards, Pulane Kareli Insurers and Retirement Fund Benefit Administrators Supervision Tel: 012 367 7868 Email: Pulane.Kareli@fsca.co.za Website: www.fsca.co.za From: Marrelie Victor <Marrelie.Victor@fsca.co.za> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 8:25 AM To: paulwalker001@yahoo.com Cc: Pulane Kareli <Pulane.Kareli@fsca.co.za> Subject: RE: Hollard Complaint Morning Paul, Hope you have a good year too. I refer to my mail to you on 12 July 2019. We really cannot communicate the details of our investigation or findings to you. If we find that Commission Regulations were breached, then there will definitely be consequences to the insurer, one of which could be a fine that will be published. Regards, Marrelie Victor Manager: Insurers & Retirement Fund Benefit Administrators Supervision Tel: 012 367 7179 Fax: 012 346 6873 Email: marrelie.victor@fsca.co.za Website: www.fsca.co.za FSCA email signature-01-01 From: Paul Walker <paulwalker001@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 7:26 PM To: Marrelie Victor <Marrelie.Victor@fsca.co.za> Cc: Pulane Kareli <Pulane.Kareli@fsca.co.za> Subject: RE: Hollard Complaint Hi and happy New year Just wondering where things stand. It's been a long, long time now. Thanks Paul Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 4:44, Marrelie Victor <Marrelie.Victor@fsca.co.za> wrote: Good day Paul, We are looking at the commission structures across the entire business. It will take some time. The insure is also conducting their own internal audit to assess the commission payment. Regards, Marrelie Victor Manager: Insurers & Retirement Fund Benefit Administrators Supervision Tel: 012 367 7179 Fax: 012 346 6873 Email: marrelie.victor@fsca.co.za Website: www.fsca.co.za FSCA email signature-01-01 From: Paul Walker <paulwalker001@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 11:40 AM To: Marrelie Victor <Marrelie.Victor@fsca.co.za> Cc: Pulane Kareli <Pulane.Kareli@fsca.co.za> Subject: Re: Hollard Complaint Hi Guys Just wondering what's happening. Thanks Paul Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 14:56, Marrelie Victor <Marrelie.Victor@fsca.co.za> wrote: Dear Paul, We have not finalized the matter. Our engagements will continue until we are satisfied that not legislation have been contravened or that there have not been unfair outcomes to policyholders as a result of practices related to commission charged by Hollard intermediaries. Unfortunately, we are bound to certain privacy requirements with regards to the investigations that we conduct. We will not be able to provide you with detailed feedback. Kind regards, Marrelie Victor Manager: Insurers & Retirement Fund Benefit Administrators Supervision Tel: 012 367 7179 Fax: 012 346 6873 Email: marrelie.victor@fsca.co.za Website: www.fsca.co.za FSCA email signature-01-01 Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here.
0 replies
78 months ago
Beware phantom after car return charges from Avis Budget. 2nd time it's happened to me
Beware beware beware those mysterious charges that appear on your card after you drop the vehicle off. Second time this has happened to me. I book via a UK aggregator because it's massively cheaper than booking locally - an issue in its own right, why rip off locals? When I dropped off the car, fully refueled, I asked the drop off person if there would be any charges over and above the tolls incurred. NO was the answer. I asked for a sign off but he couldn't give it to me. E voila, 2 days later I get a charge for....you guessed it. Refueling! This is fraudulent surely?
0 replies
92 months ago
The Con of the Qatar Privilege Club
Beware an airline that lauds itself for it's 5 star service. Sure, their business class is great, but the mark of a true 5 star operation is how they deal with problems, and in this regard is appalling. I booked an airmiles business return CT to Geneva - this in itself was a warning - there are virtually NO dates ever available, so beware promises promises of the Privilege Club. It sucks. Now, try changing a date on that ticket and you enter the the Qatar airways machinery that is designed to wear you down and do nothing. Supposedly everything is now online - it's not. Change a miles ticket...and you have to enter a service request. Stupid, but true (believe it or not they could learn a lot from Air France on this!). And God forbid they forget to actually allocate one of the few seats available in a month. Which is what Qatar did. Will they do the right thing and offer me another date. Well, no. Why, because there are no more miles seats available. BUT, you say.... well yes. They messed up but cannot offer me another date because...you guessed it, there are no miles seats left. And round and round the merry go round we go. 30 emails later. $30 on skype calls to Doha (yup, 40 euro cents a minute!). To crown it all. I call the Privilege Club. They cannot do anything...why? Because it's supposed to be all online now. Rarely have I come this close to completely losing it. Moral of the story - Qatar service sucks. They don't care. Just glad I headed my travel agent's advice and have shifted my business to Emirates. Qatar could learn a thing or two from them on service. And for that matter. Air France!
0 replies
98 months ago
Avoid Vodacom at all costs
Just avoid them like the plague. Having repeatedly asked them to verify a credit to my account (I was once sent an incomprehensible raw file) and how it's been spent (airtime credit that should have been to my real account), they have steadfastly refused.... because I don't have an itemized account! But the reason I need the itemized account is to verify that they credited me for a fault of theirs. Well, they won't! Cost to them? Zero. Now they say they will **** my number. Gun to head. What does one do? Never ever go for these guys. Even Cell C understands customer service better
105 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
0 (0%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
2 (11.764705882352942%)
1 Star
15 (88.23529411764706%)