IUM treated me as a second class citizen

I acknowledge receipt of the response hereunder, in that connection I would like to bring this to the point of clarity. 31 January 2018 Sasol fueling station lodged a claim following the quantity of petrol dispensed into my vehicle by Sasol petrol attendant with claim ref Sasol kings view ACM15999, 06 February 2018 IUM rejected the claim and confirmed that their client was not negligent with regard to the quantity of petrol dispensed into my vehicle because they had a discussion with a diesel mechanic who confirmed that only the injectors would have been damaged due to petrol. 09 February 2018 , Sasol fueling station reviewed the concerned report and asked for a revised one, 23 April 2018 IUM confirmed that third party can liaised directly with IUM appointed attorneys in this regard, 17 July 2018 IUM appointed attorneys rejected the concerned reviewed after they received their expert report. Following the e-mail dated 16 January 2018 from their insurance broker it is very clear that poor workmanship of the repairs or service has been carried out on the vehicle because their insurance broker confirmed that the assessing manager was waiting for the mechanical report from their agents to finalised his report but IUM denied the allegations. Due to the fact that it appeared to be on the road to no resolution and the problem of the damage remained I have no other option but to involve a Court of law in order to make a legal decision because I tried to exercised considerable patience in this regard and is now 13 months struggling to get back my vehicle and is unacceptable.

Good day Sharren I refer to your response,with thanks. Can you please be so kind to respond on the following very honestly and positively, paragraph 1 based on the advice from your legal department,In which way can the Third party proved his claim against the insurer? IUM stored my vehicle at their storage facility resulted that I was denied access to removed my vehicle in order to be inspected,assessment and report by an independent examination for the damage and causation and that is Dodge dealership that will give an unbiased result. Paragraph 2 ,there is nothing to do after I traveled over 100 km and the the bottom line is that and I strongly remain of the view that if the fuel was drained immediately as I requested the fueling station manager the vehicle should not be broken down at all due to the good service record. Paragraph 3, I disagree with the whole paragraph based on information from IUM,IUM made it very clear following their e-mail dated 06 December 2018 with the attached release invoices as I have requested ,that the amount of R1197.00 was paid by IUM for the towing of the vehicle from Mr Erasmus's premises to SMD s**** yard and a further amount of R8225.21 was paid to Mr Erasmus's business for towing,storage and certain work and parts on my behalf, IUM is of the position that they must be reimbursed with the mentioned amount before they will release the vehicle " it sound very strange indeed as I never requested any services or repairs of the vehicle and the fact was all about the claim that was lodged following the inadvertent dispensing of petrol into the fuel tank of the diesel engine vehicle and there is nothing to do with the repairs or services of the vehicle. With regard to the above mentioned paragraphs I am not yet convinced at all because the above statements contradicting in terms of the correspondence emails from IUM and I can forward to you upon your request. Paragraph 4,I fully agree with the offer of R3500.00 following the e-mail dated 06 February 2018 from Christo Botha to Nico Van Rooyen and also forwarded to myself as a confirmation that IUM willing to pay the above amount that a flusch would have cost but that was never happened, be that as it may, when IUM is going to pay the above amount? I trust that you shall find this in absolute good order and await your soonest response herein. Yours faithfully Jerry Nyezi