bad service

I would like to lodge a complaint against Nonhlanhla Sinthumule. A legal advisor of Discovery Insure who was handling my 3rd party claim. She is unfriendly and unprofessional. Since the first time I spoke to her she wasn’t very helpful at all. She always seemed as if she not want to assist me with anything I needed. Whenever I called her she was never available to assist me with the claim and never returned any of my calls or responded to my emails. A claim was lodged on the 10.3.2018 with the discovery client and I called in to find out about the 3rd party process. The forms were sent to me and I completed everything as per the forms and they assigned Nonhlanhla to my claim. I was every time advised that the process takes about 30 days. I did not receive any feedback during this time. I eventually called in on the 23rd April 2018 and again Nonhlanhla was not available. I then spoke to Rozanna in the legal department and she tried assisting me. She advised that everything was done and it just needed to be signed off as it was out of Nonhlanhla’s mandate. I then asked for a time frame and was advised it should take about 2 days. A few hours later I received an email from Nonhlanhla as per below. I then called in as I am not happy with the way claim is being settled. Firstly it was the Discovery client that was at fault as she was not vigilant on the road as she skipped the stop street which made me collide into her.

As per the email it states According to the description from our client you were on the through road and he came from the stop street joining the main flow of traffic and passed one lane and as are result you T-bone our client. Please can someone explain to me what is a “through road” as I do not know what that means and can someone please explain to me how one can be joining the flow of traffic at a stop street without stopping to see if the road is clear to pass through? As the discovery client she did not state that she never stopped at the stop street. Also I don’t think the legal advisor knows who her client is. As the person I collided with was a female and in the email it states and he came from the stop. Was there any investigations done with this claim or was everything thumb sucked? On the recorded line I asked if they received the accident report I was then told by Nonhlanhla that there was no need for an accident report. I asked how is that possible and I did not get a proper answer. I was also told that there is no need for witnesses as well because I explained that there were witnesses that saw the whole accident. I don’t understand how the claim be settled 60/40 when there was no proper investigations done. All my documents that was requested of me was completed and sent through. In the email it states that my vehicle is uneconomical to repair yet the settlement offer is R19090.39. I asked Nonhlanhla what am I to do with a R19090.39 as I can’t repair my vehicle or even get a new one. I asked Nonhlanhla what would she do with that amount she then told me very rudely that I should not compare myself to her as she has insurance so her car will be sorted. I then asked if this was the reason why I’m getting settled in this way was because I do not have any insurance and I could not get an answer. in the email below it states that “The above is written on a without prejudice basis” which I do not believe that this is true. If this was true then all proper investigations were done and a proper settlement would have been offered. Today I am sitting with a vehicle that is uneconomical to repair due to the negligence of a Discovery client. The vehicle is still financed which means that I have to pay for a vehicle that I am not using due to the negligence of the discovery client. I claimed from the discovery clients 3rd party liability so I don’t understand how my damages are being calculated with the discovery client. I would like this claim to be reassessed with all the factual information and all necessary documents. I would not have been in this situation if the Discovery client was vigilant on the road. As according to the road law all drivers must keep a proper look out and you had a clear vision of the road from where our client exited you did not keep the same vigilant observation and speed as the reasonable person would have done under the same circumstance As stated in the email it says that all drivers must be vigilant. The discovery was not vigilant because if she was then she would have stopped at the stop street and waited for the road to be clear before crossing. The time I saw the client in front of me I could not brake or swerve out the way. I had right of way as the road I was travelling is a one way proceeding west as stated on my statement. The client was driving toward the south and did not stop at the stop street.Please note that Nonhlanhla also admitted that her client was at fault hence the settlement offer was made