MM
Malesela M
Active since Sep 2020
12
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
12 reviews2 months ago
Compliance Concern: Device Insurance Policy Transparency & Fairness
I am raising a compliance and consumer transparency concern regarding a device insurance policy administered by Viva Cover (Pty) Ltd (trading as Techsured) and underwritten by Guardrisk Insurance Company Ltd . After reviewing the full policy wording against the FAIS Act and the Policyholder Protection Rules (PPR), particularly within the Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) framework, several provisions raise material fairness considerations. Effective 40% Excess Within First 60 Days The policy applies: A 25% excess on all claims; and An additional 15% excess if a claim occurs within the first 60 days. This results in a potential 40% deduction from the claim value. From a TCF Outcome 3 perspective (clear and not misleading disclosure), the financial impact of this structure should be prominently and explicitly communicated at point of sale, as it significantly affects the value proposition of the product. Absolute 30-Day Forfeiture Clause The policy provides that failure to: Report a claim within 30 days; or Submit required documentation within 30 days results in automatic forfeiture of all benefits. This operates as a strict condition precedent to liability. In practice, such absolute forfeiture provisions raise proportionality considerations, particularly where minor or administrative delays may occur without prejudice to the insurer. Broad “Reasonable Precautions” Requirements The policy requires that devices must not be left in public places and must be safeguarded at all times. These clauses are broadly drafted and open to interpretation at claim stage. The concern is whether such wording may allow subjective assessment of precaution standards in genuine theft scenarios. Insurance products must not only be contractually enforceable — they must reflect transparency, proportionality, and fairness in application. I would welcome clarity from Viva Cover and Guardrisk on how these provisions are positioned to consumers at point of sale and how they align with TCF Outcomes 1, 3 and 6. Constructive engagement strengthens consumer confidence in the financial services sector. hashtag#Insurance hashtag#FAIS hashtag#TCF hashtag#Compliance hashtag#FinancialServices hashtag#ConsumerProtection hashtag#SouthAfrica
53 replies
2 months ago
Compliance Concern: Device Insurance Policy Transparency & Fairness
I am raising a compliance and consumer transparency concern regarding a device insurance policy administered by Viva Cover (Pty) Ltd (trading as Techsured) and underwritten by Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited. After reviewing the full policy wording against the FAIS Act and the Policyholder Protection Rules (PPR), particularly within the Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) framework, several provisions raise material fairness considerations. 1. Effective 40% Excess Within First 60 Days The policy applies: A 25% excess on all claims; and An additional 15% excess if a claim occurs within the first 60 days. This results in a potential 40% deduction from the claim value. From a TCF Outcome 3 perspective (clear and not misleading disclosure), the financial impact of this structure should be prominently and explicitly communicated at point of sale, as it significantly affects the value proposition of the product. 2. Absolute 30-Day Forfeiture Clause The policy provides that failure to: Report a claim within 30 days; or Submit required documentation within 30 days results in automatic forfeiture of all benefits. This operates as a strict condition precedent to liability. In practice, such absolute forfeiture provisions raise proportionality considerations, particularly where minor or administrative delays may occur without prejudice to the insurer. 3. Broad “Reasonable Precautions” Requirements The policy requires that devices must not be left in public places and must be safeguarded at all times. These clauses are broadly drafted and open to interpretation at claim stage. The concern is whether such wording may allow subjective assessment of precaution standards in genuine theft scenarios. Insurance products must not only be contractually enforceable — they must reflect transparency, proportionality, and fairness in application. I would welcome clarity from Viva Cover and Guardrisk on how these provisions are positioned to consumers at point of sale and how they align with TCF Outcomes 1, 3 and 6. Constructive engagement strengthens consumer confidence in the financial services sector. #Insurance #FAIS #TCF #Compliance #FinancialServices #ConsumerProtection #SouthAfrica
53 replies
2 months ago
Hidden Excesses, Strict Forfeiture & Broad Clauses – Is This Device Insurance Designed to Pay Out
I am lodging this public warning after carefully analysing my device insurance policy administered by Viva Cover (Pty) Ltd (trading as Techsured) and underwritten by Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited. Having reviewed the policy wording against the FAIS Act, Policyholder Protection Rules (PPRs), and Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) principles, I have serious concerns about transparency, proportionality, and fairness of certain provisions. 1. Excess Structure – Potentially Misleading Cost-to-Benefit Ratio The policy imposes: 25% excess on all claims Additional 15% excess if claim occurs within 60 days This results in a 40% deduction from claim value for early claims. In practical terms, this significantly erodes the indemnity principle. For lower-value devices, the payout after excess may be disproportionately small relative to premiums paid. The material financial impact of this excess structure is not prominently disclosed in a way that aligns with TCF Outcome 3 (clear information before, during and after point of sale). 2. Absolute 30-Day Forfeiture Clause The policy states that failure to: Report within 30 days, OR Submit documents within 30 days results in automatic forfeiture of benefits. This is an extremely strict condition precedent to liability. Under the Policyholder Protection Rules, terms must not be unreasonable, unjust, or unfair. An automatic and absolute forfeiture without consideration of prejudice to the insurer raises proportionality concerns. 3. Broad Discretionary Powers The insurer reserves sole discretion to: Determine whether repair, replacement, or cash settlement applies Determine “market value” Determine whether risk is “unacceptable” Decide if precautions were sufficient The “Unacceptable Risk” clause is particularly concerning, as it allows subjective assessment based on “past claims experience” without objective thresholds. This creates a material imbalance in rights and obligations between insurer and policyholder. 4. Overly Broad “Reasonable Precautions” & Safeguarding Clauses The policy requires the device to: Not be left in a public place Be safeguarded at all times Be locked away when not in use These clauses are so broadly drafted that almost any theft scenario could potentially be challenged. In practice, this may allow repudiation based on interpretation rather than actual negligence. 5. Mysterious Loss Exclusion – Evidentiary Burden on Insured The exclusion of “mysterious or unexplained loss” places a heavy burden on the insured to prove detailed circumstances of theft. In real-world ******* scenarios, victims may not be able to provide precise details. This exclusion can operate harshly against genuine claimants. 6. Average Clause & Underinsurance Risk The inclusion of an average clause means that if the insured value is less than replacement cost, the insured must carry part of the loss. Many consumers purchasing low-premium device insurance are unlikely to understand the implications of average. 7. Commission & Binder Fee Structure The schedule reflects: 20% commission 9% binder fee Nearly 29% of the premium goes to distribution and administration before risk cost. Consumers should question how much of their premium actually funds risk versus intermediary compensation. Regulatory Considerations Under FAIS and TCF: Material terms must be disclosed clearly and prominently. Products must be appropriate for target market. Claims processes must not create unreasonable post-sale barriers. Terms must not create unfair contractual imbalance. The cumulative effect of: High excess, Strict forfeiture, Broad discretionary clauses, Extensive exclusions, raises legitimate questions regarding alignment with TCF Outcomes 1, 3, and 6. Advice to Consumers Before taking this policy: Request full policy wording in advance. Calculate real payout after excess. Ask how “market value” is determined. Ask for written confirmation of documentation deadlines. Understand the impact of early claims. Low premiums can be attractive, but the true test of insurance is how it performs at claim stage. Consumers should approach with caution and fully interrogate the fine print. If unresolved disputes arise, consumers may escalate to: National Financial Ombud Office of the FAIS Ombud Transparency and fairness are not optional in financial services — they are regulatory obligations.
53 replies
19 months ago
tecno is ****
dont ever buy this phone my screen just falls off and this is the second time don't buy this phone
53 replies
31 months ago
Clientele Life will devastate your life.
Being unemployed in SA is hard enough without being ******** out of your money by insurance companies. This company has been harassing me for almost a year to join their policy and after many rejections from me they still continued calling and asking to do a quotation for me after agreeing they took my details and without any assessment and contracta suddenly i go to purchasr grocery and find they had taken my last money and never agreed to any polict nor do i know how they used my details to approve a debit order. I think their methods should be reviewed and brought to actio cause this is really unfair i havent had a salary for almost 2 years and somehow they managed to qualify me and ***** the little cash i managed to sc**** up. This is uncalled for and i am super upset and dissapointed that they are dling this to suffering South Africans.
262 replies
59 months ago
angry af
your combination with uber eats will lose your customers cause my kid is gonna sleep hungry because of you. I think you guys should close shop in Limpopo cause if this was Bedfordview or some suburb in Jozi, we wouldn't experience this disrespect
0 replies
59 months ago
**** uber eats
these guys are scams they dont align with the drivers, my meal was delivered in joburg while I'm in Polokwane, this service worked before but my wife and kids slept hungry due to the lockdown, so **** Uber and its my mission to spread this gospel
0 replies
61 months ago
**** vodacom reward system
****en the reward program is **** and they dont give you an option can we go back to deciding what we want with our reward points. This is really **** like it only serves them cause thats all you get rewards for entry into competitions. I dont want 100k give me what i need
159 replies
62 months ago
What lies these guys will promise you
These guys are such con artist they promise that for R850 theywill do everything up till your bank account then once you make payment everything you want and need is extra costs even the documents they tell you that you have to receive they tell you stupid stories that noe you must go to Cicp and blah blah blah i should have gone to those guys who charge a R1000 and they do it for you. I advice that if you are a small company trying to get on your feet and be compliant in regulation to the law in SA dont trust these guys. What a waste of money and what false adveryising i mean even the tax clearance they promised they want you to go and apply gees im so dissapointed in this economic melt down people are still taking advantege of suffering businesses. Shame on you guys
53 replies
63 months ago
Telkom sucks worse during covid lockdown
Really telkom sucks, they get some agencies to open contracts on your behalf, i lost the phone within a month of purchase and then i didnt know who to contact for my new sim. I called telkom no 1 said a thing. Almost 2 years later tgey claim i owe them R2543 for data sim i only used a month and not wven fully. Stick with vodacom and your current mobile service provider. Else telkom will send their legal stalkers to harrass you like a commom thief
0 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
0 (0%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
0 (0%)
1 Star
12 (100%)