********* and prejudiced dealings

Following a claim in 2015, a site inspection and home contents valued, Auto and General resolved, in their own accord, to shelve the document used to assess the value of my home contents without ensuring that the necessary amendments to my household cover was adjusted accordingly upon my request in that year of 2015. Subsequent calls to ensure that cover is adjusted accordingly resulted in confirmation by Auto & General that all was in order and that a schedule will be sent. Nowhere in the schedule does it state how much my home content cover is! Which is a deliberate and clear attempt to mislead and ensure I am prejudiced against in my future claims. Coupled to that, an increase on my premium was levied just after the 2015 claim, to deliberately mislead me into thinking the increase was to cover the shortfall for my home content cover – or atleast I was led to believe. What is exceptionally startling is that the increase of an additional R 350 / month is way below the +/-R 200 / month I was quoted to pay additionally to ensure my household content cover was / is adequate. Instead, an increase following the claim, followed by an increase on policy anniversary around April were levied totalling close to about R 700 incease additionally for my monthly premium. Now, these increases happened in a period of 2 – 3 months following my break in, and given the trauma as it was my first, and confirmed telephonically with Auto and General (a lady of Indian origin) I was sure that my home content cover was re adjusted and adequate. On questioning the out of industry"" increase on my premium, Chris Havenga of Telesure (your patent Comp) last week tells me it was for my car. Even upon my recent claim - last week, he (Chris) sarcastically laughed at my current settlement, with a caveat that he is not being funny. When in fact, at that time, he was insensitive to the seriousness of my situation. I was deliberately misled, treated unfairly and prejudiced against to ensure I hit a pitfall on my next claim following the 2015 one. Nowhere, has Auto & General been honest and forthright in their dealings with me. When I wanted to cancel, rosy pictures were painted and endless guarantees made that all was in order and that both my car and household content cover was sufficient. If +/- R 700 could be levied in a few months, why wasn’t the R +/- R200 or so for the home content then not levied? When it is convenient for Auto and General, increases are levied "willy-nilly" without consultation whatsoever with me, but when it is necessary to levy an increase of a mere +/- R 200 (an insignificant amount that doesn't even cover my monthly cellphone airtime) to ensure both the insured and the insurer are covered the same doesn't happen, a whole "rig marole" is instituted to confuse, belittle, ensure the process is lengthy, time consuming and costly and the outcome favours the insurer (Auto & Guile) and prejudices and unfairly treats the insured. How can an Auto and General representative via Telesure representative visit my house - see the need to increase cover by a mere +/- R200 or so, and we both sign and agree that cover should be increased on the same document she was using to assess the contents at my house and with the conversation recorded on a device, wherein which we tacitly agree that my household content cover will be increased. Following her visiting my house, a follow up visit me my work offices with the follow up conversation again recorded were issued of under insurance were brought up and "bedded" that is, not to be an issue to me again in the future since she will ensure that correction / re-adjustment is done. My tittle and the position I occupy at work is well known, proving and indicating my affordability levels but STILL, no amendment on the home content cover as discussed or reasonably expected given the recorded conversation with the lady representative. How can the lady who visited me both at home and at work in 2015 create an impression and expectation (both of which were recorded on her device) but never act on it? And never bothered to give me feedback, written or telephonic about another process I needed to follow to ensure that is done? She left me hanging with belief that our verbal discussion couple with the fact that it was recorded was sufficient to make the necessary adjustments on my cover. Why were the 2 visits then necessary, why was I taking time of work to drive home to meet her and make additional time again to meet her at my offices? Why would an additional process on my part still be necessary to increase my home contenr cover. Why? Even though I called just to ensure that all was in order but the process itself is flawed and borders on unreasonableness and unfair **************. Devious, devoid and deliberately misleading to me. Appalled and disgusted!