IP
Itumeleng P
Active since Mar 2022
4
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
4 reviews2 months ago
Inadequate customer support in addressing ***** related issues. Poor customer service team , lazy to lodge complaints and continue to push addressing of issues to customers
*********** customer care line, management and support structure with no capacity to deal with double financed assets they involved in. ***** is not a key priority to MFC and pushes everything back to the customer a clear indication of incompetence with bad attitude. Clients gets pushed from pillar to post and lodged complaints not prioritised taking over months to be dealt with I am a victim of a possible double financing deal impacting my safety and security. I have reported the matter to MFC in November 2025 and they have blatantly ignored my concern and continues to advise that the asset belongs to MFC and not ABSA. I have been intimidated and stopped on the road on numerous occasions with tracing company forcefully wanting to take the vehicle from me. As at this morning the tracing agents arrived at my property with a judgement order issued by the court on the 23 Feb 2025 in favour of ABSA confirming that the asset belongs to ANSA and as such they need to collect the vehicle. I have contacted MFC and have spoken to a number of agents who will all unable to help me including their supervisors.They advised that I log a complaint via their ***** desk which I did. To save myself and family the embarrassment I asked MFC to provide me with an address where I can drop off the vehicle in order for MFC to address the matter with ABSA. I am honoring my contractual obligation with MFC and are not enjoying the asset as I ought to be. The amount of Harrasment and being stopped on the road is beyond my imagination while I continue to honor my side of the agreement. While I understand the seriousness of the court order I have a valid contract with MFC and handing over their asset to a third party from ABSA without a clear coordination between ABSA, MFC and all parties involved would leave me Liable for the full balance of the asset. Upon asking ABSA agents for a certified copy of the judgement and warrant of execution they failed to do so .
0 replies
12 months ago
Poor and deceptive service from Ford silverlakes
I bought a Ford ranger demo bakkie at 14000 km in KZN ; during that period I relocated to Pretoria and advised the dealership that there was a squicky noise from the brakes and they advised me to take it to the nearest Ford where I live in PTA. I waited for the car to be due for its next service where I reported the same to Ford Silverlakes where I was told the brakes are dirty and only requires cleaning The cleaning was done and the noise persisted where I repeatedly reported the same issue but was charged for cleaning the brakes every time I report the noise The noise is continuing band I took the liberty to escalate the issue to Christ Marais service manager when I took the car for its third service He had promised me to address the issue after advising me that this was a common problem with all bakkies since they changed the material component for brakes. This came as a huge surprise and was never communicated to customers. He had advised that he will get the matter sorted and will get Ford SA to cover the cost To my surprise I get a call from Anna Gerber service advisor advising me of a cost I need to pay to resolve the issue on a vehicle that has a motor plan and should be under warranty I refused to cover the cost and they still did not explain to me what the problem is This morning the service advisor send me an email asking me that Christi Marais wants me to provide him with proof that I have reported this matter since 15000 km as if I work for Ford and have access to their system or as if they provide us with reference numbers when we book cars for service; how pathetic Surprisingly their system also send me a message stating that I missed service the previous day while the car was serviced
0 replies
21 months ago
#Poorservice-customerabuse
Two weeks ago I took my car in for service and I asked the service advisor to check what the cause of the persistent oil leak was from my car which I had observed every morning when I start the car, in addition to that I advised the agent that something was wrong with the aircon as the car was losing gas resulting in a malfunctioning aircon. To my surprise the car was kept for three days and filled with dye to establish where the aircon leak was coming and the agent claimed that the oil leak was resolved while there was no indication of any loss of gas from the test. I was then hit with a bill of 32k for the oil leak repair. Upon receiving my vehicle I parked it for 4 days without driving it, upon driving the vehicle the same problem observed initially with the oil leak was visible and the gas from the aircon was gone, I called Thembi the advisor to tell her that the car seems to have the same problem I took it in for repairs and that my aircon control panel is not working which was not the case at point of first check in. They kept the car and the very same Thembi advised me that there is a cost of 27k I need to pay to have the oil and aircon problem resolved I advised her that I will not pay any additional cent towards the repair of the oil leak as the same problem was not fixed. What I could not understand is the fact that the same dying test was done and no faults were observed from the aircon however the second time around they could now establish the problem This made me ask myself if my car was indeed sorted with the oil leak when they kept it for three days and charged me 32k I am still without my car and have not received any further communication from this branch nor have they offered me a courtesy car while my car is in their possession Do they know what they are doing or are they constantly taking cash from customers without resolving mechanical issues from poor customers who might not be technically challenged and desperate to have their cars fixed
0 replies
50 months ago
Brightrock use technical language to decline claims - failure to meet their contractual obligations
I submitted 2 claims to Brightrock for Coronary Artery Disease , one claim was paid under the Additional Expense claim benefit at 10% and not 25% as per their clinical definition and recommendation by SCIDEP. They have refuted my claim because according to Brightrock upon admission I presented a sinus rhythm, No ST changes because there were No ECG changes.They cited that the Trop T/I remained well below the lower limits of the SCIDEP values prior to the stenting procedure. This simply means that the hospital was not supposed to rush me to theatre for hemodynamic instability and ongoing chest pain as emediate reperfusion to save my life. Biomarkers was positive as expected in NStemi - ACS. Interpretation of the clinical significance of elevated hsTopT requires care as the levels tend double every 6 hours. I had certainly met the American and European guidelines for the NSTEMI presentation: Symptoms Positive cardiac enzymes ECG - will sometimes show ST/T wave abnormalities or it may be normal This according to the guidelines is classified as an acute coronary syndrome. There is No such thing as a mild heart attack as defined by Brightrock…this is clearly an excuse to refuse/ decline or not fulfill claims Based on the three categories of acute coronary syndrome I presented an NSTEMI, still on treatment and undergoing cardiac rehabilitation with special arrangements from my employer to still earn a salary. Brightrock will present technical terms to confuse claimants with medically incorrect statements used including interpretation of their own policies. Patient care or customer care is clearly not their priority, they do not respond to email or simply ignore you …
53 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
0 (0%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
0 (0%)
1 Star
4 (100%)