dD
deon D
1 reviews | Active since Nov 2016
09 Nov 2018, 06:09
OPEN LETTER TO THE OMBUDSMAN ASSOCIATION OF S.A
OPEN LETTER TO THE OMBUDSMAN ASSOCIATION OF S.A Ombudsmans are a sham. They are in the pockets of the institutions that appoint them, and mislead the public into false security. FACT: You cannot appeal against the ruling of an ombudsman. FACT: In 80 % of cases the ombudsman rules in favour of the institution that appoints him. The only sensible conclusion to derive from these statistics are that 80% of the public in this country are retarded, or 20% should be investigated by the National Prosecuting Authority, or the office of the Ombudsman in this country is ***********, or blatantly *******. Your complaint is forwarded to the firm you complain about. His response could be a cake recipe, because the onus of proof rests with the you. This recipe is forwarded to you and whatever your response, the file is closed and the Ombudsman disappears from the face of the earth. You can rant and rave, no phone call or email will find him. The Ombudsman’s existence depends on the goose that lays the egg and he is not going to ruffle feathers, but your duck is dead in the water because you cannot appeal against his judgement, MY EXPERIENCE: 1. The Motor Industry Ombudsman: “All (car)dealers charge an admin fee between R2500 and R5000”.(Over and above the advertised price). A blatant lie to cover up his ruling. 2. The Ombudsman of Short Term Insurance: The insurer acknowledged liability for “the bursting or overflow of equipment or pipes, but claim rejected because the “OVERFLOW WAS ONLY A BATH WASTE PIPE.” www.dictionary.com: OVERFLOW a. The flowing over of a liquid. b. (In a bath or sink) an outlet for excess water.
CAVEAT EMPTOR!
Helpful (0)
Replies (2)0
Replies (2)
Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance's replyOfficial
09 Nov 2018, 10:54Dear Mr Hitch****
I am responsible for responding to Hellopeter.com complaints on behalf of the Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance (OSTI).
As your open letter is addressed to the Ombudsman Association of South Africa (OASA), an organization to which our office belongs, and you have specifically mentioned our office, it would only be fair that we respond in so far as our office is involved.
We do not respond for, or on behalf of OASA, or any of its members other than OSTI.
It is clear from your open letter that you hold certain unfavourable views about the various Ombudsman schemes that exist in South Africa. My response will be limited to aspects of the content of your letter which suggest that you may require a bit of information only, as I do not think it would be an exercise worth anyone's while to even attempt to dispel your beliefs, however unfounded some of them appear to be. The purpose of this response is to provide information to you and anyone who may come across your letter.
As your open letter is addressed to the Ombudsman Association of South Africa (OASA), an organization to which our office belongs, and you have specifically mentioned our office, it would only be fair that we respond in so far as our office is involved.
We do not respond for, or on behalf of OASA, or any of its members other than OSTI.
It is clear from your open letter that you hold certain unfavourable views about the various Ombudsman schemes that exist in South Africa. My response will be limited to aspects of the content of your letter which suggest that you may require a bit of information only, as I do not think it would be an exercise worth anyone's while to even attempt to dispel your beliefs, however unfounded some of them appear to be. The purpose of this response is to provide information to you and anyone who may come across your letter.
- The various Ombudsman schemes operate autonomously and from different locations, are staffed by different teams, managed by different people, governed by different boards and under different rules. They were also established under different laws.
- It is therefore quite unlikely that they would all be beset by the same shortcomings you suggest. It is quite unlikely, for example, that every single scheme and every single person working within the various schemes would be *******.
- Our office (and this probably also applies to the other offices or schemes) considers each matter on its own merits, and based on the available evidence provided by the parties to the dispute.
- We apply the law to the facts and evidence and then reach a decision regarding an appropriate outcome of the dispute. In exceptional cases, and where this is warranted, considerations of equity are invoked to ensure a fair outcome.
- In South African law, he who alleges must prove, hence the requirement that the complainant must discharge the onus of proof. This is not a creation of any of the Ombudsman scheme or even OASA, but a basic legal tenet.
- Our decisions are not binding on consumers.
- We have an internal escalation process and if followed all the way, leave to appeal a Ruling may be sought by way of an application to the Ombudsman. If granted, the matter will then be considered by a panel making up the Appeal Tribunal, which is chaired by a judge and comprises two other independent senior legal practitioners.
- If the process also does not yield the result or outcome desired by the complainant/appellant (not the insurer), the matter may still be pursued further in court, or any other appropriate forum outside our office or process.
Accordingly, if there is a specific matter which was not, in your view, handled properly, you may approach our office and use our escalation process.
You must also note that your prospects depend entirely on the strength of your case and the available evidence to be considered.
It would in addition be advisable to read our annual reports which are public and contain our statistical records, instead of making up your own statistics. (Most Ombudsman schemes also have their own annual reports.)
We trust that the above will be helpful in deciding what further action you want to take on the matter which was considered by our office.
Yours faithfully
Peter Nkhuna
Senior Assistant Ombudsman (OSTI)
Senior Assistant Ombudsman (OSTI)
Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance's reply09 Nov 2018, 10:54
Official
Dear Mr Hitch****
I am responsible for responding to Hellopeter.com complaints on behalf of the Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance (OSTI).
As your open letter is addressed to the Ombudsman Association of South Africa (OASA), an organization to which our office belongs, and you have specifically mentioned our office, it would only be fair that we respond in so far as our office is involved.
We do not respond for, or on behalf of OASA, or any of its members other than OSTI.
It is clear from your open letter that you hold certain unfavourable views about the various Ombudsman schemes that exist in South Africa. My response will be limited to aspects of the content of your letter which suggest that you may require a bit of information only, as I do not think it would be an exercise worth anyone's while to even attempt to dispel your beliefs, however unfounded some of them appear to be. The purpose of this response is to provide information to you and anyone who may come across your letter.
As your open letter is addressed to the Ombudsman Association of South Africa (OASA), an organization to which our office belongs, and you have specifically mentioned our office, it would only be fair that we respond in so far as our office is involved.
We do not respond for, or on behalf of OASA, or any of its members other than OSTI.
It is clear from your open letter that you hold certain unfavourable views about the various Ombudsman schemes that exist in South Africa. My response will be limited to aspects of the content of your letter which suggest that you may require a bit of information only, as I do not think it would be an exercise worth anyone's while to even attempt to dispel your beliefs, however unfounded some of them appear to be. The purpose of this response is to provide information to you and anyone who may come across your letter.
- The various Ombudsman schemes operate autonomously and from different locations, are staffed by different teams, managed by different people, governed by different boards and under different rules. They were also established under different laws.
- It is therefore quite unlikely that they would all be beset by the same shortcomings you suggest. It is quite unlikely, for example, that every single scheme and every single person working within the various schemes would be *******.
- Our office (and this probably also applies to the other offices or schemes) considers each matter on its own merits, and based on the available evidence provided by the parties to the dispute.
- We apply the law to the facts and evidence and then reach a decision regarding an appropriate outcome of the dispute. In exceptional cases, and where this is warranted, considerations of equity are invoked to ensure a fair outcome.
- In South African law, he who alleges must prove, hence the requirement that the complainant must discharge the onus of proof. This is not a creation of any of the Ombudsman scheme or even OASA, but a basic legal tenet.
- Our decisions are not binding on consumers.
- We have an internal escalation process and if followed all the way, leave to appeal a Ruling may be sought by way of an application to the Ombudsman. If granted, the matter will then be considered by a panel making up the Appeal Tribunal, which is chaired by a judge and comprises two other independent senior legal practitioners.
- If the process also does not yield the result or outcome desired by the complainant/appellant (not the insurer), the matter may still be pursued further in court, or any other appropriate forum outside our office or process.
Accordingly, if there is a specific matter which was not, in your view, handled properly, you may approach our office and use our escalation process.
You must also note that your prospects depend entirely on the strength of your case and the available evidence to be considered.
It would in addition be advisable to read our annual reports which are public and contain our statistical records, instead of making up your own statistics. (Most Ombudsman schemes also have their own annual reports.)
We trust that the above will be helpful in deciding what further action you want to take on the matter which was considered by our office.
Yours faithfully
Peter Nkhuna
Senior Assistant Ombudsman (OSTI)
Senior Assistant Ombudsman (OSTI)
dD
deon D's updateReviewer Update
10 Nov 2018, 08:54You response validates my conclusion, claims and complaints.
Paragraph 1. Confirms that the Ombudsman is not accountable to anyone, except his own board with its own rules.
Paragraphs 2-5 are questionable and challenged by the history of *******ion in our country.
Paragraph 6 and the rest of it; “…decisions are not binding on consumers.” Means nothing, it means that you can put the ruling in your pipe and smoke it.
If your organization is unwilling to contradict your own members, what do you rate my chances with any other body of law to rule against the Ombudsman?
“... your beliefs, however unfounded some of them appear to be.” The public must take note; this is indicative of the 80% rulings against complainants. I paid for 8 years without any claims, and did not expect my complaint to be wiped off the table. FACT: The MIOSA ombudsman based his ruling on his own lie, and the OSTI ombudsman did not even bothered-the file was closed after I responded without an official ruling or explanation. After that all emails were ignored.
dD
deon D's update10 Nov 2018, 08:54
Reviewer Update
You response validates my conclusion, claims and complaints.
Paragraph 1. Confirms that the Ombudsman is not accountable to anyone, except his own board with its own rules.
Paragraphs 2-5 are questionable and challenged by the history of *******ion in our country.
Paragraph 6 and the rest of it; “…decisions are not binding on consumers.” Means nothing, it means that you can put the ruling in your pipe and smoke it.
If your organization is unwilling to contradict your own members, what do you rate my chances with any other body of law to rule against the Ombudsman?
“... your beliefs, however unfounded some of them appear to be.” The public must take note; this is indicative of the 80% rulings against complainants. I paid for 8 years without any claims, and did not expect my complaint to be wiped off the table. FACT: The MIOSA ombudsman based his ruling on his own lie, and the OSTI ombudsman did not even bothered-the file was closed after I responded without an official ruling or explanation. After that all emails were ignored.