1 reviews | Active since Feb 2018
Ombudsman allowing absa to continue taking money my old uneducated mother and helping Absa not to pay for my mothers roof
Ombudsman is failing to help an old uneducated woman to win her case against her insure,even though we have stated that no one explained to her after she took over from my father on what us expected of her she was advised by absa to continue paying so they can help her fix her house in time of need and when she needs them they want her to read the claws ..my question is how is she supposed to know whay she is paying for when not even one letter was sent to her and i as her daughter would have read it to her like all other letters on what is expected of her.Absa is allowing Mr Henni to continue taking money form people who have no idea what they are paying for this is very sad....the roof was clearly damaged by the storm and continuous rain and the ceiling fell what more do they want us to say to cover or payup to my mother who has been paying for more than 30 years without claiming for the roof ...I WILL NOT REST UNTIL ABSA PAYS FOR MY MOMS ROOFING...IWILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES INCLUDING MEDIA ....AS it is when we speak to my mom we use voice notes to make sure she hears or understand the message across what did absa do to make sure she understood the contract as she did not go to school
It is important, from the onset, that we clarify that OSTI is independent and impartial. This means that it is neither a consumer champion nor an industry trade-body. It is not our mandate to 'help' a complainant 'win' a case against his/her insurer. Our approach to a matter is much the same as that of a judge in court – we consider the facts and evidence of the matter and make a decision based on the law and, where appropriate, on considerations of fairness and equity. If we believe that the insurer made a mistake, or that the claim was unfairly handled by the insurer, we will say so. If, however, we do not find fault with how the insurer has dealt with the claim, we will find in favour of the insurer.
In the interest of confidentiality, we cannot address the full merits of the claim on this platform. I have, however, reviewed the file and agree with the findings that the insurer's decision to decline liability was justified because the proximate cause of the damage was not the insured peril/event. This finding was made based on an expert report and photographs submitted by the insurer in its response to the complaint.
The exclusion re**** on by the insurer is a standard clause in homeowners' insurance policies, and it was the insured's responsibility to read and fami****ise herself with these terms, alternatively contact the insurer for clarity. This policy operated over several years, during which time the insurer provided the relevant policy documents. The decision made by this office in the matter is, therefore, maintained.
On the issue of the collection of premium, the insured may contact the insurer with instructions to cancel the policy should she no longer wish to continue with the cover.
Yours faithfully,
Ayanda Mazwi
Senior Assistant Ombudsman.
It is important, from the onset, that we clarify that OSTI is independent and impartial. This means that it is neither a consumer champion nor an industry trade-body. It is not our mandate to 'help' a complainant 'win' a case against his/her insurer. Our approach to a matter is much the same as that of a judge in court – we consider the facts and evidence of the matter and make a decision based on the law and, where appropriate, on considerations of fairness and equity. If we believe that the insurer made a mistake, or that the claim was unfairly handled by the insurer, we will say so. If, however, we do not find fault with how the insurer has dealt with the claim, we will find in favour of the insurer.
In the interest of confidentiality, we cannot address the full merits of the claim on this platform. I have, however, reviewed the file and agree with the findings that the insurer's decision to decline liability was justified because the proximate cause of the damage was not the insured peril/event. This finding was made based on an expert report and photographs submitted by the insurer in its response to the complaint.
The exclusion re**** on by the insurer is a standard clause in homeowners' insurance policies, and it was the insured's responsibility to read and fami****ise herself with these terms, alternatively contact the insurer for clarity. This policy operated over several years, during which time the insurer provided the relevant policy documents. The decision made by this office in the matter is, therefore, maintained.
On the issue of the collection of premium, the insured may contact the insurer with instructions to cancel the policy should she no longer wish to continue with the cover.
Yours faithfully,
Ayanda Mazwi
Senior Assistant Ombudsman.