Clientèle disputes client’s claim of fraud
CLIENTÈLE has painted Pat Sithole as a dishonest person who has no recollection of the contracts she signed with it.
Sithole had complained that Clientèle imposed four policies on her and debited her account without her authorisation.
Clientèle compliance officer Yurika Pistorius responded after Sowetan published Sithole’s story last Wednesday. Pistorius denied the four policies were fraudulently opened in Sithole’s name.
Sithole said she bought a Lasting Dignity Plan for her mother in 1999 and 2000, as well as two funeral plans for her mother-in-law, and paid her monthly premiums without fail.
Sithole said all went well until 2011 when Clientèle added four more policies in her name and debited R1 798 from her bank account without her authorisation.
She queried this and asked for audio recordings to confirm she consented to the additional policies and gave them permission to debit her bank account, but they could not produce any, she claimed.
Although Clientèle cancelled one “fraudulent” policies, it also cancelled the policies for her mother without her instruction, she said.
Pistorius said the company did obtain permission to debit all policies and that Sithole benefited from one of the four disputed policies.
She said there were eight policies Sithole paid for. Two were in favour of a Joyce Buku (mother-in-law), which were paid out in April and May after Sithole applied for a funeral payout and received R20 121 and R13 738 respectively.
Pistorius said the policies Sithole claimed were wrongfully cancelled were still active. Pistorius did not produce the written authorisation she claimed she had, saying it was sent to Sithole in 2013.
Pistorius said Clientèle refunded Sithole one policy taken in favour of her mother in 2011 because it was unable to source the signed authority to debit her account. “The benefit was given to the client and the policy was refunded to the amount of R18 432 and cancelled in accordance with her instruction.”
Pistorius said Clientèle did not refund premiums on the others because Sithole did not object to the signed authorisation subsequently sent to her for verification.