Formal Dispute of Third-Party Claim Rejection

I hereby formally dispute the rejection of my third-party claim lodged with MiWay on 20 October 2025, following a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 6 October 2025, in which I was rear-ended by your insured client.

On 16 October 2025, MiWay emailed me requesting that I complete and return the required claim documentation. I duly submitted all requested documents on 20 October 2025. Despite numerous follow-ups thereafter, I received no meaningful feedback or progress updates on my claim.

The appointed consultant was Mr Ntsieni Siobo. During my follow-ups, I was repeatedly informed that the matter was either awaiting assessors or that the documentation had been lying on the manager’s desk for approximately three weeks. On several occasions when I phoned in, I was advised that the manager was unavailable or in a meeting.

Eventually 2 months later, after I phoned again I was notified that my claim had been rejected on the basis of merits. I was provided with an assessment merit report reflecting a negative settlement, indicating that I was allegedly 80% liable, while MiWay’s insured client was found to be 20% liable.

The report sent to me includes market value and repair cost figures for both vehicles. According to the report: The insured client’s vehicle market value is stated as R289,249.68, which corresponds with the quotation provided by the panel beater for the same amount. The same panel beater also quoted approximately R100,000 for repairs to my vehicle. Despite this, MiWay assessed the third-party damages at R36,917.53 and reflected a settlement outcome of minus R28,315.91 in my case. Really???

I wish to place it on record that I am not disputing figures or market values. My primary concern is that my vehicle must be repaired, as I was not at fault in this accident.

Furthermore, I find the merits decision contradictory, as an email from Mr Ntsieni Siobo clearly states that he is not blaming me for the accident. This directly conflicts with the assessment report holding me 80% liable.

Mr Ntsieni Siobo explicitly stated in his email that MiWay was not advising that I was liable, but that due to the manner in which the accident occurred, the matter was apportioned as a “side street / through road” scenario and “not a 100% straightforward matter”. These were his exact words. This explanation is fundamentally flawed and contradicted by the actual facts of the accident.

The collision occurred at a four-way stop intersection. Your insured client failed to stop at the stop street, drove at high speed, and did not apply brakes. Your insured client collided with the rear-end of my vehicle while I was already three-quarters of the way across the intersection. The impact was so severe that my vehicle was pushed across to the opposite side of the intersection and the front rear end turned to the opposite direction.

I had a witness in my vehicle, who was extremely shocked by the severity and suddenness of the impact.

Based on these facts, the application of a “side street / through road” apportionment is entirely incorrect and unjustified. This was not a complex or ambiguous scenario. Your insured client’s failure to stop at a clearly marked four-way stop street makes them 100% liable for this accident.

I further wish to record that I was advised via email by Mr. Ntsieni that I was welcome to seek legal counsel should I wish to pursue the matter further. I find this deeply concerning and unfair.

We are pensioners, and this vehicle is the only means of transport available to us. Being placed in a position where we are effectively forced to pursue legal action due to an incorrect merits decision is both unreasonable and distressing.