CB
Carlo B
Active since Sep 2014
7
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
7 reviews59 months ago
PRINCETON SECURITY AVOID RESPONSIBILITY & LIABILITY & HIDE BEHIND THEIR CROOKED INSURANCE
In March a Princeton Security vehicle knocked into my car. Their driver crossed into 3 oncoming lanes of traffic & proceeded to ram into my vehicle. Their driver made a false statement , saying I knocked into him, & was backed up by their control room manager. I then provided the photos of the accident [ which is pretty damning & clear ] to one of the Directors, Mr Carstens. They then admitted fault & liability & advised that their insurance would deal with it. Their insurance advised to get a letter from my insurance so that I would not claim & advised that they would deal with it. After 2 1/2 months of back & forth, ducking & diving, legal loopholes & avoiding responsibility, their insurance [ RENASA ] deemed it fit to apportion some blame on ME [ this after Princeton admitted fault & liability ] & pay out 70% of the value of my vehicle repair. This is a shortfall of R17 000 [ please note that the Princeton vehicle has been repaired & I am still sitting without my car ]. I again contacted Princeton Security & they then advised to discuss with their insurance & accept the highest offer I could get. How is this response deemed acceptable ?? Why must I pay out of pocket for an accident that was not my fault ?? They seem to think it is fine to wash their hands of liability & hide behind their insurance. All I wanted was for Princeton Security to DO THE RIGHT THING. All I wanted was for my vehicle to be repaired. It seems doing the right & ethical thing is beyond this company. Please check & search on Facebook for Princeton Group/Security & Renasa as I will be posting the photos on all platforms
0 replies
59 months ago
PRINCETON SECURITY AVOID RESPONSIBILITY & LIABILITY & HIDE BEHIND THEIR CROOKED INSURANCE
In March a Princeton Security vehicle knocked into my car. Their driver crossed into 3 oncoming lanes of traffic & proceeded to ram into my vehicle. Their driver made a false statement , saying I knocked into him, & was backed up by their control room manager. I then provided the photos of the accident [ which is pretty damning & clear ] to one of the Directors, Mr Carstens. They then admitted fault & liability & advised that their insurance would deal with it. Their insurance advised to get a letter from my insurance so that I would not claim & advised that they would deal with it. After 2 1/2 months of back & forth, ducking & diving, legal loopholes & avoiding responsibility, their insurance [ RENASA ] deemed it fit to apportion some blame on ME [ this after Princeton admitted fault & liability ] & pay out 70% of the value of my vehicle repair. This is a shortfall of R17 000 [ please note that the Princeton vehicle has been repaired & I am still sitting without my car ]. I again contacted Princeton Security & they then advised to discuss with their insurance & accept the highest offer I could get. How is this response deemed acceptable ?? Why must I pay out of pocket for an accident that was not my fault ?? They seem to think it is fine to wash their hands of liability & hide behind their insurance. All I wanted was for Princeton Security to DO THE RIGHT THING. All I wanted was for my vehicle to be repaired. It seems doing the right & ethical thing is beyond this company. Please check & search on Facebook for Princeton Group/Security & Renasa as I will be posting the photos on all platforms
0 replies
59 months ago
RENASA IS STILL THE WORST - BUNCH OF CROOKS - LOOK AT REVIEWS - ALL THE SAME
THIS IS THE FEEDBACK FROM RENASA - AGAIN TRYING TO AVOID LIABILITY !!! ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENT - PRINCETON SECURITY Good day, I refer to your complaint received by our offices and write to advise that our Head of Legal and Compliance has looked into your matter and has made the following decision: “It appears that our insured executed a right hand turn in the face of oncoming traffic. The [Third Party] (TP) was travelling on the LH lane and was not easily visible to the insured driver. There were in fact several misses between turning vehicles and oncoming vehicles prior to this collision. It is also obvious that the TP was travelling at speed and that the driver of this vehicle made no effort to slow down when entering the intersection or to avoid a collision by braking or swerving out. It was also raining at the time and visibility may have been restricted. I would assess the respective degrees of negligence at 70/30 % in favour of the third party.” Kind Regards Zilokoto Mpontshane ........................... MY REPLY BELOW Good Day Please note , relook at the video, I was traveling within the speed limit [ video recording sped up ] , I did brake & turn to the left [ see from 8sec on ] to try and avoid the Princeton vehicle. Had I done a hard left I would have hit the curb & pole. The Princeton vehicle did not observe oncoming traffic & did not brake or make any attempt to avoid the collision. Please relook & revert back soonest as this outcome is wholly unacceptable. I have been back & forth in this regard on countless occasions. It is mind boggling how you can apportion blame to myself & try to avoid liability in this regard. Please stop looking for loopholes & excuses to avoid accountability. Use common sense in what was your client's fault & do the right thing. I will await your feedback. Yours Sincerely Carlo Brown ...................................... I have noted that the case law you are applying is also flawed & not relevant to the present matter. 4. In support of our assessment of the above apportionment of liability we refer to the following case law which is relevant to the facts of the present matter: RIGHT TURN – AGAINST DRIVER TURNING RIGHT The majority of cases are of the view that the driver turning right needs to ensure that the following traffic has observed and responded to his signal to turn right (see Brown vs Santam 1979 4 SA 370 W, Potgieter vs AEG Telefunkun 1977 4 SA 3 O, James vs Fletcher 1973 1 SA 687 RA, Boots Co vs Somerset West Municipality 1993 SA 216 (C)). Please note that I am not the following trafic [ i was the oncoming vehicle ]& the video provided also shows that the driver of the Ford did not observe or signal to turn right. PLEASE PROVIDE THE CASE LAW APPLICABLE TO YOUR FINDING. ................................................... Good day, Please kindly note that the Head of Legal and Compliance is the final escalation step in our internal remedies and he has looked at your email below and your complaint and has not changed his decision being: An apportionment of 70/30 % in favour of the third party. Please kindly note that OCLS will advise you on the next steps you may take should you still not be happy with the decision. Kind Regards Zilokoto Mpontshane
0 replies
60 months ago
UNPROFESSIONAL, INCOMPETENT, INEPT, UNACCEPTABLE
UNPROFESSIONAL, INCOMPETENT, INEPT, UNACCEPTABLE Oxford Claims & Legal Services - act on behalf of RENASA They represent Princeton Group [ Princeton Security ] Reading the other reviews the common thread is that they appear to use delay tactics to avoid any liability on 3rd party claims. This appears to be common practice as well as their modus operandi when dealing with client claims. There appears to be the same "cut & paste" responses to all queries [ from what I have noted & encountered in my own experience ]. Please see below my email correspondence with them : Good Day Please, advise again how you came to your outcome. This process has been dragged out by yourselves for over a month now. You have deliberately attempted to avoid any liability in this matter at every turn & have reverted back with three different outcomes during this period. Your first feedback - 1st May 2021 2.1 Our insured driver was not the cause of the collision . It is our instruction that the collision was caused by; 2.1.1 You as you collided into insured vehicle as you moved into the turn off lane., that the incident happened on Your second feedback - 5th May 2021 from Nombulelo Please note that we have relooked at the claim and are liable for your vehicle damages. Your third feedback - 12 May 2021 2.1 You should have kept a proper lookout, but failed to do so and also failed to take the necessary evasive action to avoid an accident The third feedback is also inaccurate as the Princeton vehicle came across the three oncoming lanes from behind a taxi. I did take evasive action, I braked & turned to the left but the Princeton vehicle did not brake at all & proceeded to collide with my vehicle & there was no chance of avoidance from my side. The Princeton vehicle, again, did not have right of way. The Princeton driver did not keep a proper lookout for oncoming traffic. Please advise how you can come to the conclusion & apportion any blame to myself as I have right of way in this incident & the Princeton vehicle & driver did not adhere to the rules of the road or observe when crossing over the 3 lanes of traffic ? It is noted that you have changed the outcome in this regard [ in your responses ] on 3 occasions to suit your narrative & avoid full liability. This process has dragged on for far too long at our inconvenience. The outcomes have been totally inacurate, unprofessional & unacceptable. Please advise to whom we can escalate this matter as the handling, up until this point, has been incompetent & inept. .................................................................................................................................................................... AND ANOTHER MAIL I SENT 2 DAYS LATER - & still no response : Good Day Please do so because I have noted that the case law you are applying is also flawed & not relevant to the present matter. 4. In support of our assessment of the above apportionment of liability we refer to the following case law which is relevant to the facts of the present matter: RIGHT TURN – AGAINST DRIVER TURNING RIGHT The majority of cases are of the view that the driver turning right needs to ensure that the following traffic has observed and responded to his signal to turn right (see Brown vs Santam 1979 4 SA 370 W, Potgieter vs AEG Telefunkun 1977 4 SA 3 O, James vs Fletcher 1973 1 SA 687 RA, Boots Co vs Somerset West Municipality 1993 SA 216 (C)). Please note that I am not the following trafic [ i was the oncoming vehicle ]& the video provided also shows that the driver of the Ford did not observe or signal to turn right. ......................................................................................................................................................................... These guys are a sham & do Renasa's dirty work. They should be ashamed of themselves. No Feedback from - Nombulelo Ndlovu, Eva Goremusandu, Vanessa Kgase
53 replies
60 months ago
UNPROFESSIONAL, INCOMPETENT, INEPT, UNACCEPTABLE
UNPROFESSIONAL, INCOMPETENT, INEPT, UNACCEPTABLE They represent Princeton Group [ Princeton Security ] Reading the other reviews the common thread is that they appear to use delay tactics to avoid any liability on 3rd party claims. This appears to be common practice as well as their modus operandi when dealing with client claims. There appears to be the same "cut & paste" responses to all queries [ from what I have noted & encountered in my own experience ]. Please see below my email correspondence with them : Good Day Please, advise again how you came to your outcome. This process has been dragged out by yourselves for over a month now. You have deliberately attempted to avoid any liability in this matter at every turn & have reverted back with three different outcomes during this period. Your first feedback - 1st May 2021 2.1 Our insured driver was not the cause of the collision . It is our instruction that the collision was caused by; 2.1.1 You as you collided into insured vehicle as you moved into the turn off lane., that the incident happened on Your second feedback - 5th May 2021 from Nombulelo Please note that we have relooked at the claim and are liable for your vehicle damages. Your third feedback - 12 May 2021 2.1 You should have kept a proper lookout, but failed to do so and also failed to take the necessary evasive action to avoid an accident The third feedback is also inaccurate as the Princeton vehicle came across the three oncoming lanes from behind a taxi. I did take evasive action, I braked & turned to the left but the Princeton vehicle did not brake at all & proceeded to collide with my vehicle & there was no chance of avoidance from my side. The Princeton vehicle, again, did not have right of way. The Princeton driver did not keep a proper lookout for oncoming traffic. Please advise how you can come to the conclusion & apportion any blame to myself as I have right of way in this incident & the Princeton vehicle & driver did not adhere to the rules of the road or observe when crossing over the 3 lanes of traffic ? It is noted that you have changed the outcome in this regard [ in your responses ] on 3 occasions to suit your narrative & avoid full liability. This process has dragged on for far too long at our inconvenience. The outcomes have been totally inacurate, unprofessional & unacceptable. Please advise to whom we can escalate this matter as the handling, up until this point, has been incompetent & inept. AND ANOTHER MAIL I SENT 2 DAYS LATER - & still no response : Good Day Please do so because I have noted that the case law you are applying is also flawed & not relevant to the present matter. 4. In support of our assessment of the above apportionment of liability we refer to the following case law which is relevant to the facts of the present matter: RIGHT TURN – AGAINST DRIVER TURNING RIGHT The majority of cases are of the view that the driver turning right needs to ensure that the following traffic has observed and responded to his signal to turn right (see Brown vs Santam 1979 4 SA 370 W, Potgieter vs AEG Telefunkun 1977 4 SA 3 O, James vs Fletcher 1973 1 SA 687 RA, Boots Co vs Somerset West Municipality 1993 SA 216 (C)). Please note that I am not the following trafic [ i was the oncoming vehicle ]& the video provided also shows that the driver of the Ford did not observe or signal to turn right. These guys are a sham & do Renasa's dirty work. They should be ashamed of themselves. No Feedback from - Nombulelo Ndlovu, Eva Goremusandu, Vanessa Kgase
0 replies
60 months ago
UNPROFESSIONAL, INCOMPETENT, INEPT, UNACCEPTABLE
They represent Princeton Group [ Princeton Security ] Reading the other reviews the common thread is that they appear to use delay tactics to avoid any liability on 3rd party claims. This appears to be common practice as well as their modus operandi when dealing with client claims. There appears to be the same "cut & paste" responses to all queries [ from what I have noted & encountered in my own experience ]. Please see below my email correspondence with them : Good Day Please, advise again how you came to your outcome. This process has been dragged out by yourselves for over a month now. You have deliberately attempted to avoid any liability in this matter at every turn & have reverted back with three different outcomes during this period. Your first feedback - 1st May 2021 2.1 Our insured driver was not the cause of the collision . It is our instruction that the collision was caused by; 2.1.1 You as you collided into insured vehicle as you moved into the turn off lane., that the incident happened on Your second feedback - 5th May 2021 from Nombulelo Please note that we have relooked at the claim and are liable for your vehicle damages. Your third feedback - 12 May 2021 2.1 You should have kept a proper lookout, but failed to do so and also failed to take the necessary evasive action to avoid an accident The third feedback is also inaccurate as the Princeton vehicle came across the three oncoming lanes from behind a taxi. I did take evasive action, I braked & turned to the left but the Princeton vehicle did not brake at all & proceeded to collide with my vehicle & there was no chance of avoidance from my side. The Princeton vehicle, again, did not have right of way. The Princeton driver did not keep a proper lookout for oncoming traffic. Please advise how you can come to the conclusion & apportion any blame to myself as I have right of way in this incident & the Princeton vehicle & driver did not adhere to the rules of the road or observe when crossing over the 3 lanes of traffic ? It is noted that you have changed the outcome in this regard [ in your responses ] on 3 occasions to suit your narrative & avoid full liability. This process has dragged on for far too long at our inconvenience. The outcomes have been totally inacurate, unprofessional & unacceptable. Please advise to whom we can escalate this matter as the handling, up until this point, has been incompetent & inept. AND ANOTHER MAIL I SENT 2 DAYS LATER - & still no response : Good Day Please do so because I have noted that the case law you are applying is also flawed & not relevant to the present matter. 4. In support of our assessment of the above apportionment of liability we refer to the following case law which is relevant to the facts of the present matter: RIGHT TURN – AGAINST DRIVER TURNING RIGHT The majority of cases are of the view that the driver turning right needs to ensure that the following traffic has observed and responded to his signal to turn right (see Brown vs Santam 1979 4 SA 370 W, Potgieter vs AEG Telefunkun 1977 4 SA 3 O, James vs Fletcher 1973 1 SA 687 RA, Boots Co vs Somerset West Municipality 1993 SA 216 (C)). Please note that I am not the following trafic [ i was the oncoming vehicle ]& the video provided also shows that the driver of the Ford did not observe or signal to turn right. These guys are a sham & do Renasa's dirty work. They should be ashamed of themselves. No Feedback from - Nombulelo Ndlovu, Eva Goremusandu, Vanessa Kgase
0 replies
122 months ago
EXTREMELY POOR SERVICE FROM ALL CONCERNED.
This is my 2nd complaint within the last week. The service on your 081 180 helpline is absolutely SHOCKING !! I made my 1st complaint of my incorrect billing on the 3rd of March & it as been almost a month & it is still not resolved. I am still being billed incorrectly & my account has been suspended due to their lack of effort, poor service & all-round incompetence. I have dealt with the call centre operators, \management\" & they are all inefficient & incompetent. I have been calling for the last month & have been promised return calls time & time again & yet have NEVER been called back. I have dealt with Nolothando Sishi [ team leader ] & Sheldon Dixon [ manager ] & they were all poor. They promised to \"escalate\" & call back but still nothing has been resolved. I have been advised that their Senior Managers are Farusha Senchuram & Terence Puckree but they are back office& never available. What are these people paid for if a simple billing query can go unresolved for a full month ?? They are never available, never call back & when I call I always have to hold for about 10min. I would not advise anyone to do business with Telkom Mobile as it is obvious that they dont have a CLUE ."
75 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
0 (0%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
1 (14.285714285714286%)
1 Star
6 (85.71428571428571%)