Consequential Loss due to service provider damage

I logged a claim with Old Mutual to replace the stop-**** tap on my property and they assigned their service provider - Simply First Plumbing. They assessed the job and without authorization or consent to start chopping the concrete they subsequently broke the copper nut on the copper pipe underground beneath the drain. On my following municipal account statement I received a significant increase to my water bill. I've sent all required information to Old Mutual and now they are rejecting the claim on the basis of their clause of not compensating for "Consequential Loss". However, my increased water tariff was directly after their service provider worked on my property and a consequence of poor workmanship.

This is my email that I've sent you:

You rejected my claim due to your clause of 'Consequential Loss', however, the clause of 'consequential loss' is null and void when the damage is caused by your own assigned plumbing company and their contractors.

As very noticeable there was a massive increase in the water consumption following their repair. There was no leak prior to them coming out to replace the stop **** which in the end was never replaced. We can all agree that the City of Cape Town does estimate readings from time to time but as you can see my consumption is always the same from month to month. I am trying to understand why you've mentioned the readings going from 0.286 to 0.300 when this was for readings done in March and April?

'Simply first plumbing' came out and without authorization they chopped the concrete slab around the drain and possibly broke the nut during this time. I know for a fact that there was no prior leak and a consequence of your assigned service providers breaking the concrete. The plumber 'Jerome' verbally admitted to my tenant (on Tuesday the 4th July 2023) that he turned the nut causing it to crack, if so, then why would he not advise us or report it? I believe that he broke the nut when breaking the concrete and now looking for a loop hole.

- You say you can't fully investigate the negative claims of the service provider, however, 73% of reviews are bad and yet you still keep this company as a service provider? I've sent you one example from HelloPeter about this company but there are many more.

- Regarding the discoloration of the pipe, copper is known to discolor when underground for years and it was covered by the surrounding concrete cover and there was no access to the copper pipe. Hence why your assigned contractor had to break the concrete to access it. This pipe was underground and there is no possible way for the nut to crack by itself. Surely the contractor would have seen lots of water when he arrived if there was a leak before.

I pay for insurance with Old Mutual and when I have to claim I am met with objection and looking for loop holes to not compensate me. This has now forced me to lodge a complaint with the Ombudsman and Hello Peter.

I expect a comprehensive reply to this email as well on Hello Peter or I will have to post this on Social Media as well.