PV
Phillip D
Active since Sep 2025
2
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
2 reviews2 months ago
MIWAY OR THE HIGHWAY
1. INTRODUCTION This submission outlines material procedural defects, valuation irregularities, and regulatory breaches in the handling of Claim 2151702. The insurer’s conduct, as evidenced in its correspondence dated 13 April 2026, is inconsistent with the Policyholder Protection Rules (PPR), Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) framework, and the principle of indemnity under the Short Term Insurance Act. The purpose of this document is to present a complete, referenced, regulator aligned argument demonstrating why the insurer’s decision is defective and requires correction. 2. PROCEDURAL DEFECTS 2.1 Withholding of Critical Assessment Information MiWay’s letter confirms that an assessor’s report existed, containing: • Repair cost: R124,640.48 • Salvage value: R30,503 • Write off determination However, none of this information was disclosed to the policyholder during the claim process. Instead, MiWay instructed the insured to obtain three quotations, despite already having: • an assessor’s report • a repair cost • a write off calculation This is inconsistent with: • PPR Rule 10.2.1 — timely communication • PPR Rule 10.2.2 — sufficient information for informed decisions • TCF Outcome 5 — clear, relevant, timely information The insurer’s conduct created informational prejudice. 2.2 Contradictory Instructions MiWay required the insured to obtain quotations, yet later rejected the quotation provided because it exceeded MiWay’s own assessment. This contradiction demonstrates: • procedural inconsistency • failure to follow internal claims protocols • breach of TCF Outcome 6 — no undue financial prejudice 2.3 Failure to Disclose Write Off Criteria MiWay app**** a 65% repair threshold but did not disclose: • the threshold calculation • the salvage methodology • the assessor’s findings This violates: • PPR Rule 10.3.2 — full reasons for decisions • TCF Outcome 5 — transparency 2.4 The Insured, Not MiWay, Obtained the Repair Quotation The insurer instructed the policyholder to obtain repair quotations. The policyholder comp**** and obtained a quotation independently. MiWay did not provide: • an assessor’s report • a repair cost • a salvage value • a write off calculation MiWay’s letter dated 13 April 2026 later states: “The submitted quotation is higher than the amount assessed by MiWay and cannot be accepted.” This confirms that: 1. MiWay had already conducted an internal assessment. 2. MiWay withheld this information from the policyholder. 3. MiWay misdirected the policyholder to obtain quotations unnecessarily. 4. MiWay contradicted its own instructions. This constitutes: • PPR Rule 10.2.1 breach — failure to provide timely information • PPR Rule 10.2.2 breach — failure to provide sufficient information • TCF Outcome 5 breach — unclear and misleading communication • TCF Outcome 6 breach — undue financial and administrative prejudice 3. VALUATION IRREGULARITIES 3.1 Use of a Single TransUnion Value Without Adjustment MiWay used a TransUnion retail value of R64,900, without adjusting for: • mileage • condition • regional market scarcity • actual replacement cost This is inconsistent with: • PPR Rule 7.4 — fair value • TCF Outcome 3 — product must deliver fair value 3.2 Actual Market Evidence Independent dealer listings for the same model show: • R129,000 – R135,000 (AutoTrader, Cars.co.za, Pristine Motors, Team Vaal Group) MiWay’s valuation is approximately 50% below the real replacement cost. This results in financial prejudice, contrary to TCF Outcome 6. 3.3 Salvage Value Transparency MiWay app**** a salvage value of R30,503 without providing: • a salvage yard report • condition grading • photographic evidence • auction reserve basis This violates: • PPR Rule 10.3.2 — full reasons must be provided 4. REGULATORY BREACHES 4.1 Policyholder Protection Rules (PPR) Breaches include: • Rule 10.2.1 — failure to provide timely information • Rule 10.2.2 — failure to provide sufficient information • Rule 10.3.2 — failure to provide full reasons • Rule 7.4 — failure to ensure fair value 4.2 Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) Breaches include: • Outcome 3 — fair value • Outcome 5 — clear, timely, relevant information • Outcome 6 — no undue financial prejudice 4.3 Principle of Indemnity MiWay’s valuation does not allow the insured to replace the vehicle with a similar one. This is a fundamental breach of the insurer’s obligation to indemnify. 5. REMEDY POSITION (INSURED’S REQUIRED ACTIONS) (Framed as the insured’s position, not legal instruction) Based on the defects outlined above, the insured submits the following required actions to resolve the matter: 5.1 Reassessment of Vehicle Value The insured requires MiWay to reassess the vehicle using: • TransUnion retail value adjusted for mileage and condition, AND • Actual market retail evidence (R129,000 – R135,000) 5.2 Revised Settlement Expectation Based on the real replacement cost, the insured’s position is: • Fair settlement value: R129,000 – R135,000 • Less excess: R5,000 ⭐ Revised settlement expectation: R124,000 – R130,000 This range reflects: • market retail value • indemnity principle • regulatory fairness 5.3 Disclosure Requirements The insured requires MiWay to provide: • full assessor’s report • full salvage report • valuation methodology • write off calculation • all internal notes relating to the claim 5.4 Resolution Timeline (24 Hours) Given that MiWay already possesses: • the assessor’s report • the salvage valuation • the write off calculation • the full claim file …and given the procedural delays already experienced, the insured requests: A revised settlement aligned with the real replacement value within 24 hours of receipt of this submission. This timeframe is: • reasonable • regulator aligned • consistent with PPR Rule 10 • consistent with TCF Outcomes 5 and 6 • necessary to prevent further prejudice 6. REFERENCE LIST 1. Policyholder Protection Rules (PPR), 2017, Rules 7 and 10. 2. Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) Framework, Outcomes 3, 5, and 6. 3. Short Term Insurance Act 53 of 1998, Principle of Indemnity. 4. TransUnion Auto Dealers Guide (M&M Guide) — Retail Value Methodology. 5. MiWay Policy Wording, Section: “How MiWay May Indemnify Me.” 6. MiWay Letter to Mr F. Van Dyk, dated 13 April 2026 (Claim 2151702). 7. Market Retail Data, AutoTrader and Cars.co.za listings for 2011 Hyundai Accent 1.6 GLS.
1 reply
6 months ago
BAD SERVICE AT LOMBARD TYRES POTCHEFSTROOM
Subject: Formal Claim – Faulty Battery (Technical Report Attached) This is regarding the faulty battery purchased at Lombard Tyres, Potchefstroom. Please note the following: 1. The person you referred to is my daughter, Susa, not my wife [1]. 2. The faulty battery has already been recycled and is therefore not recoverable [2]. 3. Attached is the technical report from Jaun Erasmus (Le****), which confirms the battery was defective (dead cell, incorrect fitment, and replacement required) [3]. 4. The report further shows the battery was undersized for the vehicle (628 fitted instead of 639), loose in its bracket, and failed testing with a dead cell [4]. 5. In terms of the Consumer Protection Act (South Africa), suppliers remain liable for defective goods at point of sale, regardless of subsequent recycling [5]. 6. The defect contravenes BMP (Battery Manufacturing Practices) and ISO 9001 quality management principles, which require correct specification, fitment, and performance standards [6]. I therefore expect the claim to be honoured and the faulty battery refunded in full. The defect was established and documented before recycling, and liability cannot be avoided. Please arrange for settlement accordingly. Kind regards, Phillip J. van Dyk Retired Colonel, SANDF Legal Strategist | Heritage Archivist | Studio Glass Artist Potchefstroom, North West Province, South Africa 📧 vandykpj@jenny.co.za 📞 084 058 6765 🏦 Banking Details (for settlement): • Account Holder: Phillippus Van Dyk • Account Number: 1090231148 • Account Type: Current Account (CA) • Bank Name: Nedbank • Branch Code: 198765 ________________________________________ 📑 References [1] Correction of misstatement in Pierre Loock’s email (wife vs. daughter). [2] Battery already recycled, not recoverable. [3] Technical report by Jaun Erasmus (Le****), dated 26 November 2025. [4] Report findings: undersized battery (628 vs. 639), loose bracket, dead cell. [5] Consumer Protection Act (South Africa), supplier liability for defective goods at point of sale. [6] BMP (Battery Manufacturing Practices) and ISO 9001 principles on specification, fitment, and performance compliance.
0 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
0 (0%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
0 (0%)
1 Star
2 (100%)