Toyota  Barloworld and Mcarthy are permitted to do the following with NO consequences

A vehicle broke down in the country Engine noise) (Limpopo) which was towed in at considerable  private expense to Johannesburg. On contacting McCarthy insurance, where the owner had a mechanical breakdown policy, he was directed to Barloworld for quoting and repairs. After waiting a few days in Jhb ( The owner was from Durban) with no news regarding the nature of the fault, the owner left for Durban.  A day or two after submitting details of the breakdown to McCarthy he was informed by McCarthy that the policy was repudiated on the grounds that there was insufficient damage to the vehicle. On contacting Barloworld he was informed that they had sent the vehicle to an outside contractor for repair who had duly rebuilt the engine at a cost of R22,000-00.The owner was understandably horrified, How could R22,000-00 be "insufficient damage" resulting from a rebuild? and how could Barlow world send the vehicle to an outside contractor without the knowledge or approval of the owner? It turns out that the small print in the insurance policy specifically defines "electrical or mechanical breakdown " to mean that something in the engine must break to qualify" On asking the insurance company what the matter was with the engine, they said that the timing belt had slipped  one notch resulting in the pistons touching the valves but causing no damage other than a knock. Nothing broken, no claim validation. On contacting Barloworld as to why they sent the vehicle to an outside contractor when all they had to do was to reset the valve timing, they said it was their prerogative to do so. The owner first  requested the insurance ombudsman to investigate the policy, if one can call it that, which ombudsman found in favor of the Company McCarthy. (It is not necessary for a motor dealer or the insurance company involved to supply the purchaser with a copy of the policy upon purchase all they need to do is to reflect the policy cost on an invoice from the motor dealer. On requesting a hearing from the RMI (Retail Motor industry) which is supposed to act as a watchdog for consumers iro poor service etc. at the hands of it's members (The Motor garages) Barloworld refused to attend the hearing. They were later forced to do so. At the hearing, the chairman who was hostile aggressive and threatening, found in favor of  Barloworld. The owner requested arbitration which Barloworld again refused to attend and were again coerced into attending. Once again the arbitrator found in favor of Barloworld. This time specifically stating that a garage in general and Barloworld in particular had no obligation to fix a vehicle themselves and could send any vehicle to anyone to do anything without consulting the owner first (I kid you not) This of course is a disgrace. The arbitrator, upon leaving the meeting casually mentioned that unfortunately five big company's controlled the RMI of which Barloworld was one. Several attempts to get Toyota involved in the process resulted only in the owner being fobbed off.

If you have any stories you wished published contact us.