Discovery rejects surge claim using flawed Silvex report ignoring evidence

Good day,

I refer to your response to my HelloPeter complaint. The position presented by Discovery Insure remains materially inaccurate and unsupported by the available technical evidence.

Your assertion that only a pro-forma invoice was submitted and that no diagnostic report was provided is factually incorrect. A diagnostic assessment was conducted by an LG-accredited technician, which confirmed:

· A surge-induced electrical failure; · Identification of the affected components; and · Successful repair and restoration of the appliance.

These findings are based on direct inspection, testing, and repair and constitute verifiable technical evidence.

Despite this, the repudiation is based exclusively on the Silvex damage report, which lacks appliance-specific diagnostic testing sufficient to conclusively exclude surge-related damage. No alternative technical assessment has been produced to substantiate Discovery Insure’s position or to rebut the findings of the accredited technician.

Accordingly, the decision to repudiate the claim is based on unsubstantiated assumptions (including wear and tear or component failure), rather than demonstrable diagnostic evidence, and disregards independent accredited technical findings without any competing expert evidence being provided.

You are therefore required to provide:

· All technical, diagnostic, or expert reports re**** upon in reaching the repudiation decision; · A detailed explanation of the methodology used to exclude surge damage as the proximate cause; · Confirmation of whether the LG-accredited technician’s findings were formally evaluated, and if so, the basis on which they were disregarded.

It is further noted that the Silvex damage report was disclosed only after repeated requests, and no substantive engagement has occurred regarding the technical evidence submitted. This lack of transparency and engagement raises serious concerns regarding procedural fairness and the adequacy of the claims assessment process.

Under the Policyholder Protection Rules (PPR) and the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services (FAIS) Act, insurers must ensure that claims are assessed fairly, transparently, and on the basis of appropriate and verifiable evidence. The current handling of this matter raises concerns about compliance with these obligations, particularly regarding the requirement for clear reasoning, proper investigation, and fair consideration of all relevant information.

Given the documented severe thunderstorms and power disruptions in Mabopane during the relevant period, the exclusion of surge damage without supporting diagnostic proof is not reasonably justified.

This matter has already been formally escalated to the National Financial Ombud Scheme South Africa, together with all supporting evidence, due to concerns regarding unfair claims handling and an inadequately substantiated repudiation, as stated in my HelloPeter complaint dated 08 May 2026.

In light of the above, a formal reconsideration of the claim is required, supported by clear, evidence-based justification. Failing this, the matter will proceed through the Ombud process for adjudication.

I await your full response.

Discovery Insure’s claim that it “remains available” is misleading at best. The information I formally requested on 12 May 2026 remains outstanding, despite ample opportunity to provide it. This pattern of non-response is unacceptable and reflects a serious lack of transparency and compliance with Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) principles.

This matter is now plainly a question of accountability.

Discovery Insure is hereby placed on formal notice to immediately cancel all home contents cover linked to the three (3) properties on my policy. Any further premium deductions will be treated as unauthorised, ********, and subject to recovery.
Within 3 calendar days, you are required to provide:

• Written confirmation of cancellation;
• Confirmation that all debit orders have been stopped;
• An updated policy schedule reflecting vehicle cover only.

Failure to comply will result in immediate escalation, including referral to the Ombud, a formal complaint to the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA), and the pursuit of all available legal remedies, including recovery of any unauthorised deductions.

This response will be updated publicly should Discovery Insure fail to act decisively and in accordance with its regulatory obligations.

Good day,

Thank you for your response and for confirming the removal of the home contents cover from my policy.

I hereby acknowledge receipt of the updated policy schedule as requested. I will conduct a detailed review of the document to verify that all applicable Terms and Conditions, including the amendments effected following the cancellation, remain intact, accurate, and correctly reflected.

Should any discrepancies, inconsistencies, or matters of concern be identified during this review, these will be formally communicated to you and my Financial Advisor, Faheem Paul, in writing for further attention and resolution.

Regards,

Charlotte

Good day,
I confirm that the residential address has been successfully changed as per my request.

However, kindly note that, according to the updated policy schedule received today, 18 May 2026, the financial advisor’s name is still reflected as Faheem Paul. As previously indicated, I require that his name be removed from my policy, as he serves no purpose to me as a policyholder, and I do not wish for him to be associated with my policy in any capacity going forward.
Furthermore, as discussed, a request for the recommendation of a financial advisor who will genuinely act in my best interests as a policyholder will be communicated via the HelloPeter platform once I have received the necessary information regarding the roles, responsibilities, and obligations of a broker/financial advisor. This information is required to enable me to make an informed decision, particularly as clarity on this matter could not be provided during our telephone conversation earlier today, 18 May 2026.
I trust that this matter will be addressed promptly and look forward to written confirmation once the necessary amendments have been effected and an updated policy schedule has been issued.
Kind regards,

Charlotte

Good day,
It is noted with concern and disappointment that my most recent reply to Discovery Insure, posted on the HelloPeter platform, has been removed. This raises concerns regarding transparency, as well as the handling and visibility of my correspondence on the matter.

While you have confirmed that the financial advisor has been removed from my policy, I must point out that the policy schedule issued on 18 May 2026, following our telephonic discussion, still reflected the broker/financial advisor’s name at the time of issue.

As per our telephonic discussion, it was agreed that, should I deem it necessary in the future, I may request the recommendation of a credible financial advisor via the HelloPeter platform. This remains relevant, as Discovery Insure has not provided a clear explanation of the role of the broker/financial advisor, including their responsibilities, accountability, and the purpose or value they provide in relation to my policy, despite repeated requests.

Furthermore, it is not appropriate customer practice to direct a policyholder to obtain an updated policy via the Discovery Insure app to confirm an administrative amendment. As a Discovery Insure policyholder and client, my policy-related requests require appropriate attention, clarity, and proper issuance for record-keeping purposes, in line with basic customer service principles.

I acknowledge your confirmation that the financial advisor has now been removed from my policy. However, I reiterate that I require an updated policy schedule reflecting this amendment to be sent to me without further delay.
Regards,

Charlotte