MM
Majakane M
Active since Jan 2026
2
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
2 reviews3 months ago
Conflicting information and lack of clarity regarding third-party debt collection
I am posting this review to raise concerns about how a third-party claim arising from a motor vehicle accident was handled by Naked Insurance. After the accident involving one of Naked Insurance’s insured clients, I was contacted and informed that I would be liable only for the insurance excess, which was communicated to me as approximately R20,000, in order for their client’s vehicle repairs to proceed. Subsequently, I was contacted by a company calling itself Legal Track, claiming to collect a debt on behalf of Naked Insurance. This is where my concerns arose. The amount being demanded was not limited to the excess, but instead reflected the full cost of repairs, amounting to approximately R49,000, which was never explained or justified to me. Despite repeated requests: I was not provided with proof of mandate showing that Naked Insurance had authorised Legal Track to collect this debt on their behalf; I did not receive clear legal documentation explaining why I was allegedly liable for the full repair costs rather than the excess initially communicated; I was unable to verify whether Legal Track is a registered or accredited debt collector on the Council for Debt Collectors’ website. This lack of clarity and transparency has been extremely distressing. As a consumer, I believe it is reasonable to expect consistent information, proper documentation, and confirmation when a third party is appointed to collect a debt—especially when the amount being claimed differs significantly from what was originally communicated. I am sharing this experience in the hope that Naked Insurance will clarify: The true extent of my liability; Whether Legal Track was legitimately appointed; Why there was such a significant discrepancy between the excess communicated and the amount later demanded. I would welcome a transparent and documented resolution of this matter.
56 replies
3 months ago
Lack of transparency, no payment confirmations, and no proof of mandate
I am posting this review to raise serious concerns about my experience with a company operating as Legal Track (REG. NR: 2002/083292/23), which has been contacting me to collect an alleged debt related to a motor vehicle accident. Despite making multiple payments in good faith (on 24 October 2025, 25 November 2025, and 10 January 2026), I have not received written confirmation acknowledging receipt of these payments, nor have I been provided with an updated statement of account reflecting the outstanding balance. While I did eventually receive a breakdown of the repair costs being claimed, Legal Track has failed to provide proof of mandate confirming that they are authorised by Naked Insurance to collect this debt on their behalf. I have also not been provided with any legal documentation explaining why I am being held liable for the full cost of repairs, as I was originally informed by an agent from Naked Insurance that my liability would be limited to the insurance excess. I have attempted to verify the company’s registration and authority independently but have been unable to conclusively confirm their status, which has raised further concern. Repeated written requests for clarification and documentation have not been fully addressed, yet payment demands continue. I believe consumers are entitled to transparency, proper communication, and verification when a debt is being collected. At this stage, I am still awaiting: Proof of mandate Written confirmation of payments received An updated statement of account Clear legal justification for the amount being claimed I hope this matter can be resolved professionally and transparently.
0 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
0 (0%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
0 (0%)
1 Star
2 (100%)