SL
Schalk L
1 reviews | Active since Sept 2022
07 May 2025, 08:45
Extremely Disappointed with LAW FOR ALL's Service
I am compelled to express my dissatisfaction with the service provided by LAW FOR ALL concerning my legal insurance claim (Claim ***-4-2025, Policy No. ***4).
Despite submitting comprehensive evidence—including a recorded admission of a *****ulent Certificate of Compliance, written confirmations from involved parties, photographic documentation, and multiple contractor quotations—my claim was rejected twice. Each rejection introduced new requirements, such as expert reports and affidavits, which were neither stipulated in the policy nor reasonably attainable without assistance.
Repeated requests for support in obtaining these documents were met with inadequate responses. The lack of guidance and shifting goalposts over an eight-month period have not only caused significant delays but have also severely impacted my ability to seek justice and incurred additional financial strain.
I have escalated this matter to the National Financial Ombud Scheme (NFOSA) and the FAIS Ombud, as I believe LAW FOR ALL has failed to uphold its contractual obligations and the standards expected of a legal service provider.
I advise others to exercise caution when considering LAW FOR ALL for legal insurance services.
Helpful (0)
Replies (4)0
Replies (4)
LAW FOR ALL's replyOfficial
07 May 2025, 09:56Dear Schalk Labuschagne
Thank you for taking the time to write to us about your experience with us. We're incredibly sorry to hear that you feel we've let you down.
We really care about our policyholders and always aim to provide the best legal support possible. Our award-winning team is dedicated to making the law more affordable and accessible and empowering South Africans in their daily lives.
We have sent your details to our Client Experience Department to investigate and get in touch with you urgently.
Yours in Law
LAW FOR ALL
Yours in Law
LAW FOR ALL
LAW FOR ALL's reply07 May 2025, 09:56
Official
Dear Schalk Labuschagne
Thank you for taking the time to write to us about your experience with us. We're incredibly sorry to hear that you feel we've let you down.
We really care about our policyholders and always aim to provide the best legal support possible. Our award-winning team is dedicated to making the law more affordable and accessible and empowering South Africans in their daily lives.
We have sent your details to our Client Experience Department to investigate and get in touch with you urgently.
Yours in Law
LAW FOR ALL
Yours in Law
LAW FOR ALL
SL
Schalk L's updateReviewer Update
07 May 2025, 12:18 This is a follow-up to my earlier review about LAW FOR ALL. Unfortunately, things have only worsened.
After submitting comprehensive evidence in support of my legal insurance claim — including confirmed *****, documented property defects, and even a recorded confession — my claim was still rejected. Their reason? That I failed to provide a specific affidavit and expert report — requirements they never helped facilitate, despite promising assistance.
I escalated the matter through their formal complaints and appeal processes, only to be met with generic replies, no real accountability, and no action. Their latest response continues to deflect blame, suggesting it was entirely my responsibility to source documents that they acknowledged were beyond my reach — and which they failed to help with when it mattered most.
This has now forced me to escalate the matter to the National Financial Ombud Scheme (NFOSA) for external review. It’s clear that LAW FOR ALL is more interested in rejecting claims on technicalities than in truly supporting their clients — even in the face of clear ***** and real financial harm.
- If you're considering using LAW FOR ALL, think twice. Their promise of legal protection is hollow when it matters most.
SL
Schalk L's update07 May 2025, 12:18
Reviewer Update
This is a follow-up to my earlier review about LAW FOR ALL. Unfortunately, things have only worsened.
After submitting comprehensive evidence in support of my legal insurance claim — including confirmed *****, documented property defects, and even a recorded confession — my claim was still rejected. Their reason? That I failed to provide a specific affidavit and expert report — requirements they never helped facilitate, despite promising assistance.
I escalated the matter through their formal complaints and appeal processes, only to be met with generic replies, no real accountability, and no action. Their latest response continues to deflect blame, suggesting it was entirely my responsibility to source documents that they acknowledged were beyond my reach — and which they failed to help with when it mattered most.
This has now forced me to escalate the matter to the National Financial Ombud Scheme (NFOSA) for external review. It’s clear that LAW FOR ALL is more interested in rejecting claims on technicalities than in truly supporting their clients — even in the face of clear ***** and real financial harm.
- If you're considering using LAW FOR ALL, think twice. Their promise of legal protection is hollow when it matters most.
LAW FOR ALL's replyOfficial
07 May 2025, 15:59 Dear Schalk Labuschagne
Thank you for your follow-up message and for taking the time to express your continued concerns regarding your legal matter. It is our understanding that management has been in contact with you to discuss your matter and claim outcome at length. You have further been advised that unfortunately we are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy.
Our office respects the process of the NFO and will cooperate fully with the Ombud’s review and provide all requested documentation to ensure an impartial and thorough investigation.
We appreciate the engagement and remain committed to resolving the matter fairly.
Thank you for your follow-up message and for taking the time to express your continued concerns regarding your legal matter. It is our understanding that management has been in contact with you to discuss your matter and claim outcome at length. You have further been advised that unfortunately we are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy.
Our office respects the process of the NFO and will cooperate fully with the Ombud’s review and provide all requested documentation to ensure an impartial and thorough investigation.
We appreciate the engagement and remain committed to resolving the matter fairly.
Yours in Law
LAW FOR ALL
LAW FOR ALL's reply07 May 2025, 15:59
Official
Dear Schalk Labuschagne
Thank you for your follow-up message and for taking the time to express your continued concerns regarding your legal matter. It is our understanding that management has been in contact with you to discuss your matter and claim outcome at length. You have further been advised that unfortunately we are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy.
Our office respects the process of the NFO and will cooperate fully with the Ombud’s review and provide all requested documentation to ensure an impartial and thorough investigation.
We appreciate the engagement and remain committed to resolving the matter fairly.
Thank you for your follow-up message and for taking the time to express your continued concerns regarding your legal matter. It is our understanding that management has been in contact with you to discuss your matter and claim outcome at length. You have further been advised that unfortunately we are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy.
Our office respects the process of the NFO and will cooperate fully with the Ombud’s review and provide all requested documentation to ensure an impartial and thorough investigation.
We appreciate the engagement and remain committed to resolving the matter fairly.
Yours in Law
LAW FOR ALL
SL
Schalk L's updateReviewer Update
11 May 2025, 12:11Thank you for your reply.
Unfortunately, your response here reflects the same issue I’ve been raising all along — a consistent reliance on policy terms as a shield, without acknowledging the procedural failings and lack of meaningful support I experienced during the claim process.
Yes, I’ve been “engaged” by management — but those discussions have not resolved anything. You continue to overlook the fact that your own team failed to assist when it became clear expert input was needed. Your policies may outline documentation requirements, but your staff also committed to helping me obtain those documents — and failed to deliver. That failure directly contributed to the so-called "gaps" you later used to reject the claim.
Simply saying you’ll “cooperate” with the Ombud is not enough. Real resolution means taking ownership of your role in how this matter was handled, not just repeating terms and conditions while ignoring the bigger picture.
I continue to pursue this through the National Financial Ombud Scheme (NFOSA) because, clearly, internal processes at LAW FOR ALL have failed to ensure fairness.
Unfortunately, your response here reflects the same issue I’ve been raising all along — a consistent reliance on policy terms as a shield, without acknowledging the procedural failings and lack of meaningful support I experienced during the claim process.
Yes, I’ve been “engaged” by management — but those discussions have not resolved anything. You continue to overlook the fact that your own team failed to assist when it became clear expert input was needed. Your policies may outline documentation requirements, but your staff also committed to helping me obtain those documents — and failed to deliver. That failure directly contributed to the so-called "gaps" you later used to reject the claim.
Simply saying you’ll “cooperate” with the Ombud is not enough. Real resolution means taking ownership of your role in how this matter was handled, not just repeating terms and conditions while ignoring the bigger picture.
I continue to pursue this through the National Financial Ombud Scheme (NFOSA) because, clearly, internal processes at LAW FOR ALL have failed to ensure fairness.
SL
Schalk L's update11 May 2025, 12:11
Reviewer Update
Thank you for your reply.
Unfortunately, your response here reflects the same issue I’ve been raising all along — a consistent reliance on policy terms as a shield, without acknowledging the procedural failings and lack of meaningful support I experienced during the claim process.
Yes, I’ve been “engaged” by management — but those discussions have not resolved anything. You continue to overlook the fact that your own team failed to assist when it became clear expert input was needed. Your policies may outline documentation requirements, but your staff also committed to helping me obtain those documents — and failed to deliver. That failure directly contributed to the so-called "gaps" you later used to reject the claim.
Simply saying you’ll “cooperate” with the Ombud is not enough. Real resolution means taking ownership of your role in how this matter was handled, not just repeating terms and conditions while ignoring the bigger picture.
I continue to pursue this through the National Financial Ombud Scheme (NFOSA) because, clearly, internal processes at LAW FOR ALL have failed to ensure fairness.
Unfortunately, your response here reflects the same issue I’ve been raising all along — a consistent reliance on policy terms as a shield, without acknowledging the procedural failings and lack of meaningful support I experienced during the claim process.
Yes, I’ve been “engaged” by management — but those discussions have not resolved anything. You continue to overlook the fact that your own team failed to assist when it became clear expert input was needed. Your policies may outline documentation requirements, but your staff also committed to helping me obtain those documents — and failed to deliver. That failure directly contributed to the so-called "gaps" you later used to reject the claim.
Simply saying you’ll “cooperate” with the Ombud is not enough. Real resolution means taking ownership of your role in how this matter was handled, not just repeating terms and conditions while ignoring the bigger picture.
I continue to pursue this through the National Financial Ombud Scheme (NFOSA) because, clearly, internal processes at LAW FOR ALL have failed to ensure fairness.