WM
Warren M
1 reviews | Active since Mar 2021
24 Mar 2021, 19:25
Hollard make me sick
I was referred to Hollard by Standard bank. Last year I registered a claim as my garage door motor just stopped working. I was told by them this motor was old and they can't repair or replace it. Than a few months later my Boundary wall was blown over by the wind. Hollard denied my claim as according to them my wall were not build to building regulations standards. My question is that I bought the house with the Boundary wall 2years prior to the collapse how did the banks assessor failed to see that the wall were not build to legislative requirements. To everyone who seeks home insurance please stay clear of Hollard they not an trustworthy entity I'm currently searching a replacement insurer.
Helpful (0)
Replies (2)0
Replies (2)
Hollard Insurance's replyOfficial
25 Mar 2021, 08:38Hello Warren
We are sorry that your experience has led you to contact us with a complaint.
Our Customer Resolution Department will look into this matter and get back to you as soon as possible.
Regards
Hollard Insure Complaints
We are sorry that your experience has led you to contact us with a complaint.
Our Customer Resolution Department will look into this matter and get back to you as soon as possible.
Regards
Hollard Insure Complaints
Hollard Insurance's reply25 Mar 2021, 08:38
Official
Hello Warren
We are sorry that your experience has led you to contact us with a complaint.
Our Customer Resolution Department will look into this matter and get back to you as soon as possible.
Regards
Hollard Insure Complaints
We are sorry that your experience has led you to contact us with a complaint.
Our Customer Resolution Department will look into this matter and get back to you as soon as possible.
Regards
Hollard Insure Complaints
Hollard Insurance's replyOfficial
30 Mar 2021, 15:34Good Afternoon Mr Malgas
We refer to your initial complaint on Hello Peter where you raised the following concerns :You had registered a claim for a garage door motor (***) which just stopped working, and you were told that this motor was old and could not be repaired or replaced. Then a few months later you put in a claim for your boundary wall that collapsed (***) which was rejected by Hollard due to building regulation standards not being comp**** with.
I do understand your frustration in that in submitting two claims, both claims were rejected as your policy is a policy of named perils/events. We cannot comment with regards to the Bank Assessor failing to see that the wall was not built according to Legislative requirements, as the Bank send out Valuators to appraise the value of the building and they do not check the structural integrity of the building.
In order for us to accept liability for a claim, there must be a peril (insured event) operative. With regards to your first claim for the garage door motor , this was inspected by our appointed Assessor and he found no evidence of load shedding or storm damage or any physical signs of power surge or lightning/storm. He did note that this is a very old motor, and that the gear is slipping and noisy, and when the door is pulled up or down it is too stiff and this would eventually burn the motor out.
This claim was rejected on the following grounds:
We refer you to the “SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONS” as stated in your policy wording which reads as follows:
18. SPECIFIC EXCLUSION
The following is not covered:
18.3 Loss or Liability arising from wear and tear, gradual deterioration, lack of maintenance of the Dwelling or defective design, construction or materials
You then submitted a claim for the collapse of your boundary wall and that strong winds had been experienced.
Below is an excerpt of the appointed Assessor’s findings:
“On inspection we found that the wall in question is a single brick wall with piers projecting to one side. The wall is 1.5 meters high and has a pier size of 220mm x 220mm with a pier spacing of 2.74 meters from centre to centre. The minimum building requirements for a wall of this dimension is as follows:
For a maximum wall height of 1.5 meters, the pier size must be at least 330mm x 330mm and have a maximum pier spacing of 1.8 meters apart. This wall does not comply with the minimum requirements as the pier size is too small and the pier spacing is too far apart. Additional to the above, the photos show the rest of the wall is cracked with evidence of previous repairs done. As the wall does not comply to the minimum building regulation requirement for this type of wall. The damage to the insured property is not as a result of a single insured event / peril. The damage occurred over an extended period of time, and is a result of gradual deterioration.”
Your claim was rejected on the following grounds:
We refer you to the “Specific Exclusions” as stated within your policy wording which reads as follows:
Specific Exclusions
The following is not covered
18.3 Loss or Liability arising from wear and tear, gradual deterioration, lack of maintenance of the Dwelling or defective design, construction or materials.
Should you remain dissatisfied with our response the onus will now rest on you to disprove our findings and follow the escalation process as indicated in our email response of earlier today.
Kind Regards
Cathy Triggiani
Customer Resolution Consultant
We refer to your initial complaint on Hello Peter where you raised the following concerns :You had registered a claim for a garage door motor (***) which just stopped working, and you were told that this motor was old and could not be repaired or replaced. Then a few months later you put in a claim for your boundary wall that collapsed (***) which was rejected by Hollard due to building regulation standards not being comp**** with.
I do understand your frustration in that in submitting two claims, both claims were rejected as your policy is a policy of named perils/events. We cannot comment with regards to the Bank Assessor failing to see that the wall was not built according to Legislative requirements, as the Bank send out Valuators to appraise the value of the building and they do not check the structural integrity of the building.
In order for us to accept liability for a claim, there must be a peril (insured event) operative. With regards to your first claim for the garage door motor , this was inspected by our appointed Assessor and he found no evidence of load shedding or storm damage or any physical signs of power surge or lightning/storm. He did note that this is a very old motor, and that the gear is slipping and noisy, and when the door is pulled up or down it is too stiff and this would eventually burn the motor out.
This claim was rejected on the following grounds:
We refer you to the “SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONS” as stated in your policy wording which reads as follows:
18. SPECIFIC EXCLUSION
The following is not covered:
18.3 Loss or Liability arising from wear and tear, gradual deterioration, lack of maintenance of the Dwelling or defective design, construction or materials
You then submitted a claim for the collapse of your boundary wall and that strong winds had been experienced.
Below is an excerpt of the appointed Assessor’s findings:
“On inspection we found that the wall in question is a single brick wall with piers projecting to one side. The wall is 1.5 meters high and has a pier size of 220mm x 220mm with a pier spacing of 2.74 meters from centre to centre. The minimum building requirements for a wall of this dimension is as follows:
For a maximum wall height of 1.5 meters, the pier size must be at least 330mm x 330mm and have a maximum pier spacing of 1.8 meters apart. This wall does not comply with the minimum requirements as the pier size is too small and the pier spacing is too far apart. Additional to the above, the photos show the rest of the wall is cracked with evidence of previous repairs done. As the wall does not comply to the minimum building regulation requirement for this type of wall. The damage to the insured property is not as a result of a single insured event / peril. The damage occurred over an extended period of time, and is a result of gradual deterioration.”
Your claim was rejected on the following grounds:
We refer you to the “Specific Exclusions” as stated within your policy wording which reads as follows:
Specific Exclusions
The following is not covered
18.3 Loss or Liability arising from wear and tear, gradual deterioration, lack of maintenance of the Dwelling or defective design, construction or materials.
Should you remain dissatisfied with our response the onus will now rest on you to disprove our findings and follow the escalation process as indicated in our email response of earlier today.
Kind Regards
Cathy Triggiani
Customer Resolution Consultant
Hollard Insurance's reply30 Mar 2021, 15:34
Official
Good Afternoon Mr Malgas
We refer to your initial complaint on Hello Peter where you raised the following concerns :You had registered a claim for a garage door motor (***) which just stopped working, and you were told that this motor was old and could not be repaired or replaced. Then a few months later you put in a claim for your boundary wall that collapsed (***) which was rejected by Hollard due to building regulation standards not being comp**** with.
I do understand your frustration in that in submitting two claims, both claims were rejected as your policy is a policy of named perils/events. We cannot comment with regards to the Bank Assessor failing to see that the wall was not built according to Legislative requirements, as the Bank send out Valuators to appraise the value of the building and they do not check the structural integrity of the building.
In order for us to accept liability for a claim, there must be a peril (insured event) operative. With regards to your first claim for the garage door motor , this was inspected by our appointed Assessor and he found no evidence of load shedding or storm damage or any physical signs of power surge or lightning/storm. He did note that this is a very old motor, and that the gear is slipping and noisy, and when the door is pulled up or down it is too stiff and this would eventually burn the motor out.
This claim was rejected on the following grounds:
We refer you to the “SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONS” as stated in your policy wording which reads as follows:
18. SPECIFIC EXCLUSION
The following is not covered:
18.3 Loss or Liability arising from wear and tear, gradual deterioration, lack of maintenance of the Dwelling or defective design, construction or materials
You then submitted a claim for the collapse of your boundary wall and that strong winds had been experienced.
Below is an excerpt of the appointed Assessor’s findings:
“On inspection we found that the wall in question is a single brick wall with piers projecting to one side. The wall is 1.5 meters high and has a pier size of 220mm x 220mm with a pier spacing of 2.74 meters from centre to centre. The minimum building requirements for a wall of this dimension is as follows:
For a maximum wall height of 1.5 meters, the pier size must be at least 330mm x 330mm and have a maximum pier spacing of 1.8 meters apart. This wall does not comply with the minimum requirements as the pier size is too small and the pier spacing is too far apart. Additional to the above, the photos show the rest of the wall is cracked with evidence of previous repairs done. As the wall does not comply to the minimum building regulation requirement for this type of wall. The damage to the insured property is not as a result of a single insured event / peril. The damage occurred over an extended period of time, and is a result of gradual deterioration.”
Your claim was rejected on the following grounds:
We refer you to the “Specific Exclusions” as stated within your policy wording which reads as follows:
Specific Exclusions
The following is not covered
18.3 Loss or Liability arising from wear and tear, gradual deterioration, lack of maintenance of the Dwelling or defective design, construction or materials.
Should you remain dissatisfied with our response the onus will now rest on you to disprove our findings and follow the escalation process as indicated in our email response of earlier today.
Kind Regards
Cathy Triggiani
Customer Resolution Consultant
We refer to your initial complaint on Hello Peter where you raised the following concerns :You had registered a claim for a garage door motor (***) which just stopped working, and you were told that this motor was old and could not be repaired or replaced. Then a few months later you put in a claim for your boundary wall that collapsed (***) which was rejected by Hollard due to building regulation standards not being comp**** with.
I do understand your frustration in that in submitting two claims, both claims were rejected as your policy is a policy of named perils/events. We cannot comment with regards to the Bank Assessor failing to see that the wall was not built according to Legislative requirements, as the Bank send out Valuators to appraise the value of the building and they do not check the structural integrity of the building.
In order for us to accept liability for a claim, there must be a peril (insured event) operative. With regards to your first claim for the garage door motor , this was inspected by our appointed Assessor and he found no evidence of load shedding or storm damage or any physical signs of power surge or lightning/storm. He did note that this is a very old motor, and that the gear is slipping and noisy, and when the door is pulled up or down it is too stiff and this would eventually burn the motor out.
This claim was rejected on the following grounds:
We refer you to the “SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONS” as stated in your policy wording which reads as follows:
18. SPECIFIC EXCLUSION
The following is not covered:
18.3 Loss or Liability arising from wear and tear, gradual deterioration, lack of maintenance of the Dwelling or defective design, construction or materials
You then submitted a claim for the collapse of your boundary wall and that strong winds had been experienced.
Below is an excerpt of the appointed Assessor’s findings:
“On inspection we found that the wall in question is a single brick wall with piers projecting to one side. The wall is 1.5 meters high and has a pier size of 220mm x 220mm with a pier spacing of 2.74 meters from centre to centre. The minimum building requirements for a wall of this dimension is as follows:
For a maximum wall height of 1.5 meters, the pier size must be at least 330mm x 330mm and have a maximum pier spacing of 1.8 meters apart. This wall does not comply with the minimum requirements as the pier size is too small and the pier spacing is too far apart. Additional to the above, the photos show the rest of the wall is cracked with evidence of previous repairs done. As the wall does not comply to the minimum building regulation requirement for this type of wall. The damage to the insured property is not as a result of a single insured event / peril. The damage occurred over an extended period of time, and is a result of gradual deterioration.”
Your claim was rejected on the following grounds:
We refer you to the “Specific Exclusions” as stated within your policy wording which reads as follows:
Specific Exclusions
The following is not covered
18.3 Loss or Liability arising from wear and tear, gradual deterioration, lack of maintenance of the Dwelling or defective design, construction or materials.
Should you remain dissatisfied with our response the onus will now rest on you to disprove our findings and follow the escalation process as indicated in our email response of earlier today.
Kind Regards
Cathy Triggiani
Customer Resolution Consultant