SS
sarel S
Active since Nov 2010
66
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
66 reviews2 months ago
Eva Kganyago saved the day!
I would like to give a massive shout-out to Eva Kganyago at Pineapple. My claim journey didn't start off as smoothly as I had hoped, but everything changed once Eva took over. She was incredibly professional, proactive, and most importantly, she kept me updated every step of the way. While I wasn't thrilled about some of the additional excesses I had to pay, I am so relieved that the claim is now officially settled and sorted. If you’re dealing with Pineapple, ask for Eva—she makes things happen!
53 replies
2 months ago
Procedural Negligence & Ghosting by Goldwagen Claims (Ref: 3407-1917)
I am updating my complaint to highlight a total lack of accountability regarding my engine failure claim (Ref: 3407-1917). Despite your previous (now removed) response promising communication, I am still being ignored by both the Roodepoort branch and your Head Office Claims Department. 1. Failure to Communicate On 16/02/2026, I contacted your Claims Department and was promised a callback by the end of business. That call never came. This follows months of "waiting for feedback" from the Roodepoort Branch Manager, while your internal records show the claim was already rejected on 16/01/2026. +1 2. Procedural Incompetence (The "Missing" Parts) Your inspection report rejects the claim because a roller and the snapped bolt were "not returned". The Roller: This was hand-delivered to your Roodepoort branch by my son after your initial request. If it did not reach the assessment, it is a Goldwagen logistical failure, not mine. The Snapped Bolt: As a MIOSA-vetted assessor, I have preserved the sheared portion of the bolt inside the cylinder block to protect the fracture face for metallurgical analysis. Removing it would compromise the evidence. +1 3. Ignoring Technical Facts Your own report acknowledges the parts were fitted at 206,413 km and failed at 206,477 km—a total of 64 km. A brand-new tensioner bolt snapping in under 100 km is a clear indication of a material defect, yet you have made no effort to inspect the engine block where the evidence remains. +1 FINAL DEMAND: I do not accept a rejection based on "missing parts" that your own branch failed to forward or that are physically embedded in the engine. I demand: An immediate reopening of Claim 3407-1917. A technical representative to be dispatched to my premises to inspect the bolt in situ. A formal response regarding the R10,000.00 in consequential damages caused by this failure. If this is not resolved within 48 hours, I will be lodging a formal dispute with MIOSA and the Consumer Goods and Services Ombudsman (CGSO). Your "company policy" does not override the Consumer Protection Act.
0 replies
2 months ago
Claim Delays, False Accusations, and Poor Service
I am beyond disappointed with the service (or lack thereof) from Pineapple Insurance regarding my pothole claim submitted on 6 February 2026. 1. Delay Tactics: I was told I’d receive a WhatsApp for a digital assessment immediately after my call on the 6th. It never arrived. When I followed up on the 10th, I was told the assessment didn't happen because I hadn't sent scene photos—despite me already explaining there were no photos of the "scene," only the damage. It feels like they are playing for time. 2. Misinformation & False Accusations: Pineapple staff claimed there is a judgment against my name and used this as a basis to discriminate against me, even refusing to cover my household contents. I have since pulled my own Transunion report and verified with FNB/Finfix—there is no judgment against my name. 3. ************** regarding Debt Review: While I am under debt review (which I transparently disclosed), using false information about "judgments" to stall a valid vehicle damage claim is unacceptable. 4. Appalling Customer Service: When I called today to clarify the Transunion discrepancy, the agent was incredibly rude. When I expressed my frustration, she dismissively told me "that is not a question." Why do we pay for insurance if we are treated like ********s when we actually need to use it? As of now, Pineapple has no indication of the full extent of my vehicle damage (noisy wheel bearing and suspension issues) and seems more interested in finding excuses not to pay than in helping their customers. Avoid Pineapple if you want an insurer that actually supports you during a claim.
56 replies
2 months ago
Follow-up #2: FNB Private Clients — Gross Negligence & Obstruction of ***** Dispute
This is my second follow-up regarding a ***** dispute reported on 30 January 2026. Despite a superficial "response" to my first HelloPeter post, FNB has effectively abandoned this case. On Tuesday (Feb 3rd), FNB sent an email that was meant to contain the dispute forms. The email had no attachments. I rep**** immediately to notify the bank, yet 6 days later, I have received zero response, no phone call, and still no paperwork. As a "Private Client," I am being met with total silence while the window to dispute these *****ulent AliExpress charges closes. This is no longer just a service delay; it is gross negligence that is actively putting my funds at risk. I demand the following within 24 hours: A direct phone call from a Senior Dispute Manager (not a general consultant). The correct dispute forms sent to me immediately. Written confirmation that FNB will honor this dispute regardless of time elapsed, as the delay is entirely due to FNB's failure to provide the forms. If this is not resolved today, my next step is a formal complaint to the National Financial Ombud (NFO).
112 replies
2 months ago
Absa Case C-64010559 Closed Without Resolution – Provided Contact Number is Dead
I am writing to express my absolute frustration with Absa’s handling of my complaint (Ref: C-64010559). I received an automated email stating that my case has been closed, yet the underlying issue remains completely unresolved. To make matters worse, the email instructs me to contact Nthabiseng Sibande at (+27) 11 501 6350 for further information. However, when dialing this number, I am met with a recording stating, "The subscriber you have dialed is not available at present." It is unacceptable to: Close a formal complaint without actually providing a solution or answer. Direct a client to a non-functional telephone number. Ask for "Good or Bad" feedback when the basic channels of communication are broken. I am requesting that a competent representative who is actually reachable contact me immediately to finalize this matter. Stop closing cases just to improve your internal "turnaround time" statistics while leaving the customer stranded.
56 replies
2 months ago
FNB Private Clients: Endless "Ping-Pong" between ***** and General Enquiries for **** Dispute
I am extremely disappointed with the lack of internal communication and service from FNB Private Clients. On Friday, Jan 30th, I contacted the ***** department to report a **** involving AliExpress. My card was correctly blocked, but I was told that to log the actual **** dispute, I had to speak to General Banking. I spent a significant amount of time explaining the **** and the lack of support from AliExpress to a consultant. I was promised that a dispute email would be sent to me to complete and return. Today (Tuesday), I received my new card, but I still have not received the email. When I followed up with FNB today, I was told there is no record of the dispute on the system—only the card replacement. The consultant then tried to transfer me back to the ***** department, which is exactly where I started. Is this the level of service "Private Clients" should expect? I am being sent in circles while the window to dispute these *****ulent charges closes. I need a specialized dispute consultant to contact me immediately with the correct paperwork.
56 replies
3 months ago
ABSA failing to protect customer from documented international ***** - No response to dispute
I am deeply disappointed with ABSA’s lack of urgency regarding a clear-cut case of international merchant *****. I have been a victim of a *****ulent transaction on AliExpress where the seller not only sent non-functional goods but committed Customs ***** by falsifying shipping documents (Order IDs: 3066136017746003 & 3064833866846003). Despite the merchant’s own agent admitting in writing (Case ID: 2053806999684143) that the seller is at fault, the platform has closed the case without a refund. I called the ABSA *****/dispute department and was told to email disputes@absa.co.za. I have sent the email with full evidence—including the admission of fault and proof of the falsified customs declarations—but I have received zero response or acknowledgement. As my bank, ABSA has a duty to initiate a Chargeback under Visa/Mastercard rules when a merchant breaches T&Cs and admits fault. By staying silent, ABSA is allowing a *****ulent international merchant to keep my money. I require an immediate response from a senior dispute officer to process this reversal. I have the econsumer.gov ***** report and all transcripts ready for review.
56 replies
3 months ago
DISPUTE: Procedural Failure and Unfair Rejection of Engine Warranty Claim (Ref: 3407-1917)
Update on Claim Status I am writing to formally dispute the rejection of my warranty claim (ID: 3407-1917) issued on 16/01/2026. The claim was rejected by Schaeffler/Goldwagen on the grounds of "missing parts", which I contend is a result of logistical mishandling by the Roodepoort branch and a failure to follow proper assessment protocols for a sheared component. The Facts of the Dispute As a MIOSA-vetted assessor, I find the following points in the Inspection Report to be unacceptable: Logistical Error (The Roller): The report states a roller was missing. While it was not in the initial box, it was hand-delivered to Goldwagen Roodepoort by my son days later. If this was not included in the assessment, the branch failed to forward the complete evidence to Head Office. The Snapped Bolt (Preservation of Evidence): The report rejects the claim because the bolt was not returned. One portion was lost on the road during the failure. The other portion remains sheared off inside the cylinder block. Technical Impasse: I have intentionally not removed the broken stud to avoid damaging the fracture face. For a valid metallurgical analysis, the bolt must be viewed in its current state to prove it was correctly torqued to 20 NM and did not fail due to over-tightening. Negligible Mileage: The report acknowledges the part failed after only 64 km (Fitted: 206,413 km / Removed: 206,477 km). Failure of Communication While the manufacturer rejected this claim on January 16th, the Goldwagen Roodepoort branch manager was still informing me that they were "waiting for feedback" and that parts were still being assessed. This discrepancy shows a total lack of transparency in the claims process. Required Resolution I refuse to accept a rejection based on a "missing" bolt that is currently embedded in the engine block. I require Goldwagen to: Reopen Claim 3407-1917 immediately. Dispatch a Technical Representative to inspect the cylinder block and the remaining bolt segment in situ. Account for the "missing" roller which was delivered to the Roodepoort branch. Should this not be resolved, I will be escalating this matter through MIOSA and the Consumer Goods and Services Ombudsman (CGSO) for a formal ruling on consequential damages totaling R10,000.00.
56 replies
5 months ago
Catastrophic Engine Failure due to Allegedly Defective Part - NO RESPONSE to Formal Claim (Ref: VW Polo )
I am writing to express my severe dissatisfaction regarding a catastrophic engine failure linked to a component purchased from Goldwagen Roodepoort and the complete lack of response to my formal Assessment and Warranty Claim Report. 📅 Timeline & Incident Summary Purchase Date(s): Parts purchased on 2025/08/19 (Timing Belt Kit, Code A4552) and 2025/09/02 (Pulley, Code A3639, and Cylinder Head Bolts). Incident: Catastrophic Engine Failure (Valves vs. Piston Impact). Cause of Failure: The new tensioner pulley bolt snapped approximately 60 km after a complete engine overhaul, despite being correctly torqued to the factory specification of 20 NM using a calibrated wrench. Resultant Damage: The snapping of the bolt caused an immediate loss of timing, leading to the bending of all sixteen (16) newly installed valves. Formal Report Submission: My detailed Assessment and Warranty Claim Report was formally emailed to the Goldwagen Claims Department on 07-10-2025. 🚫 Lack of Response It has been over a month since I submitted the detailed report on 07-10-2025, which included a full assessment, part details, and photographic evidence, and I have received absolutely no acknowledgment or response from the Goldwagen Claims Department. 💰 Claim for Damages The failure is directly attributed to a quality defect in the new tensioner pulley bolt supp**** by Goldwagen Roodepoort. This failure has resulted in consequential financial damages of approximately R10 000.00, which covers: Repair/Replacement of 16 Bent Valves. Engine Re-strip, Re-assembly, and Labour Overrun. 16 Lifters and Followers. 🙏 Required Resolution I urgently require Goldwagen to: Acknowledge receipt of my report (emailed 07-10-2025). Provide immediate instruction on the procedure for submitting the failed component (the snapped bolt) for metallurgical analysis. Outline the process for claiming the consequential financial damages of approximately R10 000.00. I look forward to your prompt response and collaboration to resolve this critical warranty matter. Sincerely,
0 replies
5 months ago
Persistent and Unwanted Telemarketing Calls - Cartrack
I am writing to express my severe dissatisfaction regarding the persistent, unsolicited, and unwanted telemarketing calls I have been receiving from Cartrack. Details of the Issue: Nature of Calls: The calls are from Cartrack's sales/telemarketing department, promoting vehicle tracking and related services. Frequency: I have received calls on multiple occasions, including: Source Numbers: The calls often originate from various numbers, including [List a few of the recurring numbers if you have them, e.g.,0100052815 Opt-Out Requests: On several of these occasions, I have explicitly informed the agent that I am not interested and have requested to be permanently removed from all telemarketing and promotional contact lists. Despite these clear instructions, the calls have continued. Compliance Concern: The continued calling after I have explicitly requested to opt out is in contravention of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), which stipulate a consumer's right to restrict processing of their personal information for direct marketing purposes. Desired Outcome / Resolution: Immediate and Permanent Removal: I demand that my personal contact details, specifically , be immediately and permanently removed from all Cartrack marketing databases and call lists. Confirmation: I require written confirmation from a Cartrack representative that this action has been completed and that I will not receive any further unsolicited sales or promotional calls. Internal Review: I request that Cartrack investigate the internal process that failed to record and action my previous requests to opt-out. I trust that Cartrack will treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves and take swift action to resolve this infringement on my privacy. Sincerely,
71 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
7 (10.606060606060606%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
12 (18.181818181818183%)
1 Star
47 (71.21212121212122%)