NM
Nobesotho M
1 reviews | Active since Feb 2016
05 May 2026, 14:35
More stress from my insurer than the actual theft, punished for being a victim
Today, 05/05/2026, my car was broken into and my laptop was ******. I reported it to the police straight away and got a case number, and I contacted Discovery Limited as my insurer.
Honestly, I’m shocked and frustrated by the response I’ve received.
I’m now being told I must produce a box, invoice, or bank statement for a laptop I bought in 2020/2021. Who keeps a box from 5 or 6 years ago? And if I don’t have it, my claim might not be approved? Then what exactly have I been paying premiums for every single month? It makes no sense to pay for cover on something and then be told I can’t claim for it because I don’t have packaging from years ago.
Then I’m told I must go back to the police station to get a stamped report. Why? I already gave you a case number. You don’t get a case number unless the case is actually opened and registered. Now I must run around again, after already dealing with the shock of being ******, just to prove something that is already in the system?
And then the part that honestly upset me the most, I’m being told I have to pay extra excess because there was “no forced entry.” My car was jammed. That is how people break in now. So what does that mean? That I would be in a better position if my window was smashed and my car was damaged? Must my property be completely destroyed for this to be taken seriously?
It feels like I’m being punished because the person who broke into my car didn’t do it violently enough. As if the violation doesn’t count unless there’s visible damage. That is completely unfair. The fact is, my space was violated and my belongings were taken. That is the reality, whether there’s a broken window or not.
Right now, instead of feeling supported, I feel like I’m being put through unnecessary hoops at a time when I’m already dealing with the stress of what happened. It honestly feels like I’m being victimised all over again after already going through the trauma of having my space invaded.
I need this to be looked at properly and handled fairly, because this situation is not okay.
Helpful (0)
Replies (5)0
Replies (5)
Discovery Insure's replyOfficial
05 May 2026, 15:00Good day Nobesotho,
Thank you for taking the time to share your experience with us. We are truly sorry to hear about the incident and the distress you’ve gone through — having your vehicle broken into and your laptop ****** is understandably upsetting, and we acknowledge how unsettling this must have been for you.
A member of our team will be in contact with you directly to discuss your claim further and to assist where possible. Thank you for bringing this to our attention — your feedback is important and helps us improve how we support our clients in moments that matter most.
Kind regards,
Discovery Insure
Thank you for taking the time to share your experience with us. We are truly sorry to hear about the incident and the distress you’ve gone through — having your vehicle broken into and your laptop ****** is understandably upsetting, and we acknowledge how unsettling this must have been for you.
A member of our team will be in contact with you directly to discuss your claim further and to assist where possible. Thank you for bringing this to our attention — your feedback is important and helps us improve how we support our clients in moments that matter most.
Kind regards,
Discovery Insure
Discovery Insure's reply05 May 2026, 15:00
Official
Good day Nobesotho,
Thank you for taking the time to share your experience with us. We are truly sorry to hear about the incident and the distress you’ve gone through — having your vehicle broken into and your laptop ****** is understandably upsetting, and we acknowledge how unsettling this must have been for you.
A member of our team will be in contact with you directly to discuss your claim further and to assist where possible. Thank you for bringing this to our attention — your feedback is important and helps us improve how we support our clients in moments that matter most.
Kind regards,
Discovery Insure
Thank you for taking the time to share your experience with us. We are truly sorry to hear about the incident and the distress you’ve gone through — having your vehicle broken into and your laptop ****** is understandably upsetting, and we acknowledge how unsettling this must have been for you.
A member of our team will be in contact with you directly to discuss your claim further and to assist where possible. Thank you for bringing this to our attention — your feedback is important and helps us improve how we support our clients in moments that matter most.
Kind regards,
Discovery Insure
Discovery Insure's replyOfficial
06 May 2026, 14:31Good day
Thank you for your patience. We would like to confirm that we are currently in communication with the Claims Department regarding your matter. We understand your frustration and acknowledge your confirmation that there is no proof of payment available, as the laptop was purchased some time ago.
To assist us further with your claim, we kindly request that you provide any pictures of the laptop that you may have. Should you be unable to provide pictures, please note that the Claims Department will still attend to your claim.
Kindly be advised that a basic excess of R1,000.00 will be required. In addition, as the incident was a result of remote jamming, a further excess of 20% of the claimed amount will be required.
It is important that we work together to achieve a satisfactory outcome. Any pictures of the laptop, should you have them, will assist us greatly. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require any further assistance or clarification. We appreciate your cooperation and understanding.
Regards
Discovery Insure
Thank you for your patience. We would like to confirm that we are currently in communication with the Claims Department regarding your matter. We understand your frustration and acknowledge your confirmation that there is no proof of payment available, as the laptop was purchased some time ago.
To assist us further with your claim, we kindly request that you provide any pictures of the laptop that you may have. Should you be unable to provide pictures, please note that the Claims Department will still attend to your claim.
Kindly be advised that a basic excess of R1,000.00 will be required. In addition, as the incident was a result of remote jamming, a further excess of 20% of the claimed amount will be required.
It is important that we work together to achieve a satisfactory outcome. Any pictures of the laptop, should you have them, will assist us greatly. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require any further assistance or clarification. We appreciate your cooperation and understanding.
Regards
Discovery Insure
Discovery Insure's reply06 May 2026, 14:31
Official
Good day
Thank you for your patience. We would like to confirm that we are currently in communication with the Claims Department regarding your matter. We understand your frustration and acknowledge your confirmation that there is no proof of payment available, as the laptop was purchased some time ago.
To assist us further with your claim, we kindly request that you provide any pictures of the laptop that you may have. Should you be unable to provide pictures, please note that the Claims Department will still attend to your claim.
Kindly be advised that a basic excess of R1,000.00 will be required. In addition, as the incident was a result of remote jamming, a further excess of 20% of the claimed amount will be required.
It is important that we work together to achieve a satisfactory outcome. Any pictures of the laptop, should you have them, will assist us greatly. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require any further assistance or clarification. We appreciate your cooperation and understanding.
Regards
Discovery Insure
Thank you for your patience. We would like to confirm that we are currently in communication with the Claims Department regarding your matter. We understand your frustration and acknowledge your confirmation that there is no proof of payment available, as the laptop was purchased some time ago.
To assist us further with your claim, we kindly request that you provide any pictures of the laptop that you may have. Should you be unable to provide pictures, please note that the Claims Department will still attend to your claim.
Kindly be advised that a basic excess of R1,000.00 will be required. In addition, as the incident was a result of remote jamming, a further excess of 20% of the claimed amount will be required.
It is important that we work together to achieve a satisfactory outcome. Any pictures of the laptop, should you have them, will assist us greatly. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require any further assistance or clarification. We appreciate your cooperation and understanding.
Regards
Discovery Insure
NM
Nobesotho M's updateReviewer Update
07 May 2026, 08:28Thank you for the response and for confirming that the claim will still be attended to.
However, I feel that the main concerns I raised are still being overlooked.
My frustration was never only about the documents requested. It is about the broader principle of how victims of crimes like remote jamming are treated during the claims process.
I still do not understand why a client is effectively penalised with an additional 20% excess because there was “no forced entry,” when remote jamming is a known method used to gain access to vehicles without visible damage. It creates the impression that unless a window is smashed or the vehicle is physically damaged, the incident is somehow treated as less legitimate.
That is the part that feels deeply unfair.
The reality is that my vehicle was ********ly accessed and my belongings were ******. Whether there was visible damage or not does not change the violation or the loss suffered.
I acknowledge your confirmation that the claim will still be attended to even if I am unable to provide photos or supporting documents for the laptop. However, that is precisely why I am struggling to understand why I am being put through the process of trying to locate years-old documents or photos in the first place, especially after already dealing with the stress of the theft itself. It feels like an unnecessary additional burden if the claim will ultimately still be assessed without them.
Further to this, should the fact that I have been paying a monthly premium to insure the item not, at the very least, serve as confirmation that the item existed and was covered under my policy?
At the moment, the process feels far more adversarial than supportive, and that is disappointing from an insurer I trusted to assist me in exactly these situations, particularly one that prides itself on its service.
I would appreciate a proper explanation of the rationale behind these requirements and penalties, rather than simply being advised that they apply.
In closing, while I acknowledge that my complaint has been noted and responded to, I cannot help but feel that the actual substance of my concerns has been completely overlooked. The response appears to acknowledge my frustration on the surface, while simultaneously proceeding to apply the very requirements and penalties I raised concerns about in the first place.
As a result, I do not feel heard, understood, or fairly treated in this process.
However, I feel that the main concerns I raised are still being overlooked.
My frustration was never only about the documents requested. It is about the broader principle of how victims of crimes like remote jamming are treated during the claims process.
I still do not understand why a client is effectively penalised with an additional 20% excess because there was “no forced entry,” when remote jamming is a known method used to gain access to vehicles without visible damage. It creates the impression that unless a window is smashed or the vehicle is physically damaged, the incident is somehow treated as less legitimate.
That is the part that feels deeply unfair.
The reality is that my vehicle was ********ly accessed and my belongings were ******. Whether there was visible damage or not does not change the violation or the loss suffered.
I acknowledge your confirmation that the claim will still be attended to even if I am unable to provide photos or supporting documents for the laptop. However, that is precisely why I am struggling to understand why I am being put through the process of trying to locate years-old documents or photos in the first place, especially after already dealing with the stress of the theft itself. It feels like an unnecessary additional burden if the claim will ultimately still be assessed without them.
Further to this, should the fact that I have been paying a monthly premium to insure the item not, at the very least, serve as confirmation that the item existed and was covered under my policy?
At the moment, the process feels far more adversarial than supportive, and that is disappointing from an insurer I trusted to assist me in exactly these situations, particularly one that prides itself on its service.
I would appreciate a proper explanation of the rationale behind these requirements and penalties, rather than simply being advised that they apply.
In closing, while I acknowledge that my complaint has been noted and responded to, I cannot help but feel that the actual substance of my concerns has been completely overlooked. The response appears to acknowledge my frustration on the surface, while simultaneously proceeding to apply the very requirements and penalties I raised concerns about in the first place.
As a result, I do not feel heard, understood, or fairly treated in this process.
NM
Nobesotho M's update07 May 2026, 08:28
Reviewer Update
Thank you for the response and for confirming that the claim will still be attended to.
However, I feel that the main concerns I raised are still being overlooked.
My frustration was never only about the documents requested. It is about the broader principle of how victims of crimes like remote jamming are treated during the claims process.
I still do not understand why a client is effectively penalised with an additional 20% excess because there was “no forced entry,” when remote jamming is a known method used to gain access to vehicles without visible damage. It creates the impression that unless a window is smashed or the vehicle is physically damaged, the incident is somehow treated as less legitimate.
That is the part that feels deeply unfair.
The reality is that my vehicle was ********ly accessed and my belongings were ******. Whether there was visible damage or not does not change the violation or the loss suffered.
I acknowledge your confirmation that the claim will still be attended to even if I am unable to provide photos or supporting documents for the laptop. However, that is precisely why I am struggling to understand why I am being put through the process of trying to locate years-old documents or photos in the first place, especially after already dealing with the stress of the theft itself. It feels like an unnecessary additional burden if the claim will ultimately still be assessed without them.
Further to this, should the fact that I have been paying a monthly premium to insure the item not, at the very least, serve as confirmation that the item existed and was covered under my policy?
At the moment, the process feels far more adversarial than supportive, and that is disappointing from an insurer I trusted to assist me in exactly these situations, particularly one that prides itself on its service.
I would appreciate a proper explanation of the rationale behind these requirements and penalties, rather than simply being advised that they apply.
In closing, while I acknowledge that my complaint has been noted and responded to, I cannot help but feel that the actual substance of my concerns has been completely overlooked. The response appears to acknowledge my frustration on the surface, while simultaneously proceeding to apply the very requirements and penalties I raised concerns about in the first place.
As a result, I do not feel heard, understood, or fairly treated in this process.
However, I feel that the main concerns I raised are still being overlooked.
My frustration was never only about the documents requested. It is about the broader principle of how victims of crimes like remote jamming are treated during the claims process.
I still do not understand why a client is effectively penalised with an additional 20% excess because there was “no forced entry,” when remote jamming is a known method used to gain access to vehicles without visible damage. It creates the impression that unless a window is smashed or the vehicle is physically damaged, the incident is somehow treated as less legitimate.
That is the part that feels deeply unfair.
The reality is that my vehicle was ********ly accessed and my belongings were ******. Whether there was visible damage or not does not change the violation or the loss suffered.
I acknowledge your confirmation that the claim will still be attended to even if I am unable to provide photos or supporting documents for the laptop. However, that is precisely why I am struggling to understand why I am being put through the process of trying to locate years-old documents or photos in the first place, especially after already dealing with the stress of the theft itself. It feels like an unnecessary additional burden if the claim will ultimately still be assessed without them.
Further to this, should the fact that I have been paying a monthly premium to insure the item not, at the very least, serve as confirmation that the item existed and was covered under my policy?
At the moment, the process feels far more adversarial than supportive, and that is disappointing from an insurer I trusted to assist me in exactly these situations, particularly one that prides itself on its service.
I would appreciate a proper explanation of the rationale behind these requirements and penalties, rather than simply being advised that they apply.
In closing, while I acknowledge that my complaint has been noted and responded to, I cannot help but feel that the actual substance of my concerns has been completely overlooked. The response appears to acknowledge my frustration on the surface, while simultaneously proceeding to apply the very requirements and penalties I raised concerns about in the first place.
As a result, I do not feel heard, understood, or fairly treated in this process.
Discovery Insure's replyOfficial
07 May 2026, 10:45Good day
Thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed response. I would like to acknowledge upfront that your concerns are understandable, and we recognise the frustration that can arise during the claims process, particularly following a distressing incident.
Firstly, I want to be clear that the insurer does not regard incidents involving remote jamming as illegitimate or less serious. We acknowledge that your vehicle was ********ly accessed and that a theft took place. The absence of visible damage does not diminish the seriousness of the incident, the violation experienced, or the loss suffered.
The application of a higher excess where there is no visible, violent, or forcible entry is not intended as a penalty, nor does it reflect any doubt regarding the validity of your claim. It is a policy-based underwriting provision that is app**** consistently to all claims falling within this category.
Statistically, claims involving theft from vehicles without visible forced entry present a higher exposure and greater complexity of risk, including incidents involving signal or remote jamming. For this reason, the policy differentiates between:
• Theft with visible signs of forced entry; and
• Theft without visible signs of forced entry.
Continued....
Thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed response. I would like to acknowledge upfront that your concerns are understandable, and we recognise the frustration that can arise during the claims process, particularly following a distressing incident.
Firstly, I want to be clear that the insurer does not regard incidents involving remote jamming as illegitimate or less serious. We acknowledge that your vehicle was ********ly accessed and that a theft took place. The absence of visible damage does not diminish the seriousness of the incident, the violation experienced, or the loss suffered.
The application of a higher excess where there is no visible, violent, or forcible entry is not intended as a penalty, nor does it reflect any doubt regarding the validity of your claim. It is a policy-based underwriting provision that is app**** consistently to all claims falling within this category.
Statistically, claims involving theft from vehicles without visible forced entry present a higher exposure and greater complexity of risk, including incidents involving signal or remote jamming. For this reason, the policy differentiates between:
• Theft with visible signs of forced entry; and
• Theft without visible signs of forced entry.
Continued....
Discovery Insure's reply07 May 2026, 10:45
Official
Good day
Thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed response. I would like to acknowledge upfront that your concerns are understandable, and we recognise the frustration that can arise during the claims process, particularly following a distressing incident.
Firstly, I want to be clear that the insurer does not regard incidents involving remote jamming as illegitimate or less serious. We acknowledge that your vehicle was ********ly accessed and that a theft took place. The absence of visible damage does not diminish the seriousness of the incident, the violation experienced, or the loss suffered.
The application of a higher excess where there is no visible, violent, or forcible entry is not intended as a penalty, nor does it reflect any doubt regarding the validity of your claim. It is a policy-based underwriting provision that is app**** consistently to all claims falling within this category.
Statistically, claims involving theft from vehicles without visible forced entry present a higher exposure and greater complexity of risk, including incidents involving signal or remote jamming. For this reason, the policy differentiates between:
• Theft with visible signs of forced entry; and
• Theft without visible signs of forced entry.
Continued....
Thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed response. I would like to acknowledge upfront that your concerns are understandable, and we recognise the frustration that can arise during the claims process, particularly following a distressing incident.
Firstly, I want to be clear that the insurer does not regard incidents involving remote jamming as illegitimate or less serious. We acknowledge that your vehicle was ********ly accessed and that a theft took place. The absence of visible damage does not diminish the seriousness of the incident, the violation experienced, or the loss suffered.
The application of a higher excess where there is no visible, violent, or forcible entry is not intended as a penalty, nor does it reflect any doubt regarding the validity of your claim. It is a policy-based underwriting provision that is app**** consistently to all claims falling within this category.
Statistically, claims involving theft from vehicles without visible forced entry present a higher exposure and greater complexity of risk, including incidents involving signal or remote jamming. For this reason, the policy differentiates between:
• Theft with visible signs of forced entry; and
• Theft without visible signs of forced entry.
Continued....
Discovery Insure's replyOfficial
07 May 2026, 10:45Continued...
Where no visible forced entry is present, an additional excess applies, in line with the Excess Annexure forming part of your policy wording.
While we appreciate that modern ******** methods may not always leave physical evidence, the policy terms remain binding. Your feedback regarding the fairness of this distinction has been formally noted and recorded for review, as it relates to an evolving risk environment that insurers continue to assess.
Documentation Requirements
We understand your frustration regarding requests for historical documents or photographs. These requests are not intended to dispute ownership or the existence of cover, but are standard requirements aimed at:
• Confirming the details of the insured item;
• Validating its specifications and value
• Ensuring the most accurate and equitable assessment of the claim.
While the claim can proceed even if such documentation is unavailable, any supporting information you are able to provide assists in facilitating a fair and efficient claims assessment.
Regards
Discovery Insure
Where no visible forced entry is present, an additional excess applies, in line with the Excess Annexure forming part of your policy wording.
While we appreciate that modern ******** methods may not always leave physical evidence, the policy terms remain binding. Your feedback regarding the fairness of this distinction has been formally noted and recorded for review, as it relates to an evolving risk environment that insurers continue to assess.
Documentation Requirements
We understand your frustration regarding requests for historical documents or photographs. These requests are not intended to dispute ownership or the existence of cover, but are standard requirements aimed at:
• Confirming the details of the insured item;
• Validating its specifications and value
• Ensuring the most accurate and equitable assessment of the claim.
While the claim can proceed even if such documentation is unavailable, any supporting information you are able to provide assists in facilitating a fair and efficient claims assessment.
Regards
Discovery Insure
Discovery Insure's reply07 May 2026, 10:45
Official
Continued...
Where no visible forced entry is present, an additional excess applies, in line with the Excess Annexure forming part of your policy wording.
While we appreciate that modern ******** methods may not always leave physical evidence, the policy terms remain binding. Your feedback regarding the fairness of this distinction has been formally noted and recorded for review, as it relates to an evolving risk environment that insurers continue to assess.
Documentation Requirements
We understand your frustration regarding requests for historical documents or photographs. These requests are not intended to dispute ownership or the existence of cover, but are standard requirements aimed at:
• Confirming the details of the insured item;
• Validating its specifications and value
• Ensuring the most accurate and equitable assessment of the claim.
While the claim can proceed even if such documentation is unavailable, any supporting information you are able to provide assists in facilitating a fair and efficient claims assessment.
Regards
Discovery Insure
Where no visible forced entry is present, an additional excess applies, in line with the Excess Annexure forming part of your policy wording.
While we appreciate that modern ******** methods may not always leave physical evidence, the policy terms remain binding. Your feedback regarding the fairness of this distinction has been formally noted and recorded for review, as it relates to an evolving risk environment that insurers continue to assess.
Documentation Requirements
We understand your frustration regarding requests for historical documents or photographs. These requests are not intended to dispute ownership or the existence of cover, but are standard requirements aimed at:
• Confirming the details of the insured item;
• Validating its specifications and value
• Ensuring the most accurate and equitable assessment of the claim.
While the claim can proceed even if such documentation is unavailable, any supporting information you are able to provide assists in facilitating a fair and efficient claims assessment.
Regards
Discovery Insure