Client not being treated according to TCF principle.

Miway has demonstrated that they do not exercise their obligation of applying the principle TCF (Treating Customers Fairly) when dealing with claims be lodged. I have been with Miway since Jul 2016 with a clean record always paying my premium etc. After a housebreak and lodging my claim they have gone out of their way to find means not to settle the claim as per comprehensive cover as per my policy.

They have decided to treat my claim with prejudice and not in the manner as it was underwritten due to my house bordering the highway. As per definition non-residential property: “used to describe a building, etc. that is not used for people to live in: Construction of non-residential property such as new office buildings is increasing.” “Not used as a residence, generally referring to a building or property used for business or other commercial purposes.” According to the definitions as well as my understanding highway does not fall under such a definition and is a public road. If public roads are considered non-residential then all home owners should not be covered comprehensively as most of us has as road leading to the front of our homes - which is public.

This is the first time that I have lodge a claim even providing video footage of the ******s that shows the theft. Even my direct neighbours were broken into and their insurer has paid their claim with no hesitation or proof of the items. I had to provide proof of ownership (pictures) of the items that I listed as ******. Furthermore, people such as my neighbours and a friend that was the first to come when I reported the break in were questioned as to what items were ******. Really? How would they know of all the items?

Miway has issued me with an agreement of loss to the total value of R7 816.98 based on their calculation of prejudice which I believe is unfair and not in accordance to my cover and not inline with TCF. For one of the items they have collected quotations the replacement value alone is R9 999. Why then have insurance if you are not covered for the loss or damages of goods?

I have gone so far as to request my recording of when cover was taken and I can say that all questions were answered truthfully and no-where was any misrepresentation made of my property. The following question was asked “Is there any non-residential properties directly adjacent to your property” whereby my answer was no, based on my understanding of the definition as stipulated above.

When I did query the situation of non-residential property the Miway Assessor referred me back to the policy wording. Unfortunately I was not able to find it and requested that she specifically highlights it for me. The response received “Your contract with MiWay was telephonically based where certain questions were posed to you to underwrite your policy and risk, including the question on non-residential properties, therefore the definition of non-residential properties will not be defined in the policy wording.” Based the fact that she was aware of my contract being done telephonically she still referred me to policy wording which she knew would not be there.

Furthermore I have lodged a complaint to with them on 9 April, whereby I received an email that advises one that the matter will be attended to within 8 hours. I have not been contacted as of yet.