Pathetic Service ever in my entire life.

I am short of words to describe how terrible, horrible, pathetic is momentum with their service. I regret leaving my previous insurer. I have sent numerous emails expressing my dissatisfaction with the service I am receiving from them but they have never bothered to even try resolve one of my complaints.they simply ignore my complaints as if they have never received any of my emails . but hey when they want something from you they are very quick to pick the phone or even email me but if you want to address something from them they simply ignore you. the last complaint I have registered with them was on the 5th of January 2020 where the next day they sent me an acknowledgement of receipt promising to give me feedback within 48 hours by Angelina Kgomo.up to this hour she has never called or address any concerns I have. Friday the 10th I received a call from them because they were rejecting my claim even received the rejection letter. but when I gave in to their demands they were quick to acknowledge receipt. we suffer on the hands of the ********* and also suffer on the hands of the organisations that we believe should be comforting us. I feel I am ****** at gun point again by Momentum. and the nice thing the ****s who are robbing me I know them(momentum) and I paid them a premium. sad part is that they received all the emails and they don't deny anything on the emails instead they they opt to ignore me. here is the last email which they have opted not to respond to :

Good day

Referring to the matter between Nkosinathi Mashele (Applicant) and Momentum (first respondent), Happy Nthabiseng Pooe (second respondent). Case number 15304/2016. Revised 02 March 2017. Judgement handed down by acting Judge of the High Court of South Africa Gauteng local division, Johannesburg , Judge AJ Ratshibvumo.

Relating it to my current claim C***5323 with Momentum where Beacons and billings are demanded. Which of my view the request is not reasonable as you claim it to be. Paragraph 11 of the judgement, "the court was not able to find that such request is reasonable within the meaning of the contract". Which I have also requested that Momentum and Renchia must show me where in the contract does it require beacons and billings as part of my obligations. She and her Manager Angelina Kgomo has failed to show me or rather have not provided me with the response of the clause on the contract , that says I need to comply with such.

In the telephonic conversation I had with the Assessor Renchia she said failure to comply with such a request will result to my claim being rejected, of which in my view she has already concluded that she will reject my claim. After my own research and consideration I came across the judgement that says "the court was not able to find such request reasonable within the meaning of the contract . One would expect that the information to be requested would be reasonable if it enabled the first respondent not only to verify that the insured property was damaged, but also to help in assessing the damage or the costs".(paragraph 11).

Paragraph 13 "the court would not have any reason to fault him given the fact that the information required appeared to be irrelevant". "The only possible reason in the demand by the first respondent could be to try and find a lie or mispresantation on the part of the applicant in a desperate search for a reason to repudiate the claim even circumstances where there appeared to be none". Which I find it happening in my claim, there are delaying tactics and no replies to emails sent. The des****ancies mentioned by Angelina and the Assessor Renchia, yet refused to discuss them with me but hiding behind "I'm still validating " this from the Assessor. The Assessor sent the Detective to my house to do a "suprise search " to see if the reported items are back in the house. The Detective mentioned he is acting under the instruction of Renchia.

This aspect and further search for the mispresantation to my part, ignores the provisions of Section 1 Act 53 of 1998(the short-term insurance act) to the effect "(1)(a) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in a short term policy, whether entered into before or after the commencement of this act, but subject to subsection (2)- (i) the policy shall not be invalidated, (ii) the obligation of the short term insurer there under shall not be excluded or limited, and (iii) the obligations of the policy holder shall not be increased, on account of any presantation made to the insurer which is not true,or failure to disclose information, whether or not the represantation or disclosure has been warranted to be true and correct, unless that represantation or non disclosure is such as to be likely to have materially affected the assessment of the risk under the policy concerned at the time of its issue or at the time of any renewal or variations thereof. (b) The represantation or non disclosure shall be regarded as material if a reasonable, prudent person would consider that the particular information constituting the represantation or which was not disclosed, as the case may be,should have been correctly disclosed to the short term insurer so that the insurer could form its own view as to the effect of such information on the assessment of the relevant risk.

The non disclosure of claims she has referred to will not justify repudiation of the claim, simply because I have disclosed all the claims relating to incidents happened at the addresses I have once occupied and the current address. The assessor did not probe for any other nature of claims in her questioning.

Refer to paragraph 15 of the judgement, I quote: "It is for this reason that Meter AJ held in Holley v Auto& General insurance company Ltd[5]that the fact that such information was not disclosed in itself does not justify the repudiation of the plaintiffs claim. The defendant bears the onus of proving that the test for materiality as enacted in the amended Section 53(1)of the short term insurance Act&rdqud, ) was satisfied"

It further adds "Suppose there was indeed a mispresantation made by the applicant, the first respondent would have to show that such mispresantation is such as to be likely to have materially affected the assessment of the risk under policy concerned at the time of its issue or at a time of renewal or variation thereof".

Paragraph 16 : when this provision was first introduced through the amendment of section 63 the now repealed 27 of 1943(the insurance act),section 63(3) read, "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any domestic policy or any document relating to such policy, any such policy issued before or after the commencement of this act ,shall not be invalidated and the obligation of an insurer there under shall not be excluded or limited and the obligations of the owner thereof shall not be increased, on account of any representation made to the insurer which is not true,whether or not such represantation has been warranted to be true, unless the incorrectness of such represantation is of such a nature as to be likely to have materially affect the assessment of the risk under the said policy at the time of issue or any reinstatement or renewal thereof."

The objective of section 63(3) was explained by Krigler AJA in Qilingele v South african Mutual Life Assurance Society [6] as follows "The object of the enactment is manifest, namely to protect claimants under insurance contracts against repudiations based on inconsequential inaccuracies or trivial misstatements in insurance proposals. An insurers right to repudiate liability on the basis of the untruth of a representation made to it, whether elevated to warranty or not ,was curtailed.

I have comp**** with all obligations or requirements as per policy wording on contract entered to between I Protus Makholwa Mathonsi and Momentum.

Regards