LS
LIZZY S
Active since Jan 2026
3
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
3 reviews1 month ago
Warranty Dispute on Jetour Dashing (15,000 km) – Unresolved Radiator Issue After Service
I am raising a concern regarding my Jetour Dashing, which was taken to the dealership for a routine service at approximately 15,000 km. At the time of drop-off, the vehicle had no issues, no warning lights, no overheating, no coolant loss, and no visible leaks. The car was operating normally. After the service inspection, I was informed that the radiator has a coolant leak. The dealership has attributed this to a stone impact and has rejected the warranty claim, stating that the damage is external. However, I dispute this conclusion for the following reasons: The vehicle showed no prior symptoms whatsoever before the service. The issue was only identified after the vehicle was in the dealership’s care No conclusive evidence has been provided to confirm when the alleged damage occurred. The explanation does not reasonably align with the vehicle’s condition prior to service. While I understand that external damage may not be covered under warranty, I expect a clear, technically supported explanation before such a conclusion is made especially on a relatively new vehicle with low mileage. I have requested detailed evidence and clarification, but the responses received have not adequately addressed my concerns. This matter has now been escalated to the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa for independent review. I am still willing to resolve this matter amicably and would appreciate: A fair reassessment of the diagnosis or a goodwill resolution given the circumstances that the car is still new with very low milage. I hope Jetour South Africa and the dealership will address this matter with the transparency and customer care expected.
0 replies
3 months ago
Unfair Charges for eWallet Reversal
I sent an eWallet to a recipient who was unable to access the funds immediately. As a result, I needed to make alternative arrangements. I attempted to reverse the eWallet on my side using the available functionality; however, I was unable to do so. Upon contacting FNB, I was informed that in order to reverse the transaction, I would need to pay approximately R300 because the cellphone number used for the eWallet is linked to the recipient’s bank account, and the funds are now reflecting in that account. I find this unreasonable for the following reasons: The eWallet service provides functionality that allows a sender to reverse a transaction if the recipient has not accessed the funds. As the sender, I have no way of knowing whether the cellphone number I am sending to is linked to an FNB account. I should not be held financially responsible for internal system processes that automatically transfer the funds into an account. I am willing to pay the standard eWallet reversal fee; however, I cannot accept being charged additional fees equivalent to withdrawing funds from a bank account. The functionality is available to all FNB clients, and the inability to reverse the transaction through normal channels should not result in excessive charges to me.
1 reply
4 months ago
DECLINED INSURANCE CLAIMS
I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding the repeated rejection of multiple claims under my insurance policy, all of which have been declined on the basis of “wear and tear.” This is now the third incident, and I am extremely concerned about the consistency and fairness of these decisions. Gutters damage: The gutters were damaged during severe storms and strong winds, with portions of the gutters being blown away. This was clearly weather-related damage; however, the claim was rejected and classified as wear and tear. Ceiling damage following a geyser burst: After a geyser burst, the ceiling sustained significant damage. Despite the damage being a direct result of the incident, the claim for the ceiling repairs was also not covered. Pool pump: Currently, the pool pump is not working, and once again we have been advised that this falls under wear and tear and will not be covered. Under what circumstances claims are approved, if storm damage, burst geysers, and resultant damages are all excluded? How these incidents qualify as wear and tear rather than insured events? At this point, it is extremely frustrating to continue paying insurance premiums while legitimate claims are consistently declined. It raises serious concern about the value and purpose of the policy if damages arising from unforeseen incidents are not covered.
0 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
0 (0%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
0 (0%)
1 Star
3 (100%)