1 reviews | Active since Oct 2024
Appalling Service and Unfair Claim Decline
Title: Appalling Service and Unfair Claim Decline – OUTsurance Complaint:
I am extremely dissatisfied with the level of service received from OUTsurance following the theft of my 2017 Ford Ranger TDCi on 14/03/2026.
Since lodging my claim, I have experienced continuous poor service, lack of communication, and complete disregard for client engagement. I have had to consistently follow up myself, yet calls are neither returned nor handled professionally.
On 19/03/2026, I was informed that my claim had been declined due to the absence of a tracker. This is unacceptable, as I explicitly disclosed at the inception of my policy on 18/12/2025 that my vehicle did not have a tracker. Despite this, the policy was issued without any indication that this would affect a theft claim.
I requested the call recording from the date the policy was taken out to verify this disclosure. To date, despite multiple follow-ups, this has not been provided. This lack of transparency is deeply concerning.
Numerous attempts were made to engage with the assigned claims handler, Zothani Ndelu, who has consistently been unavailable and has failed to return calls. I was repeatedly assured by various consultants and managers, including Lelo Msomi, that the matter would be escalated and that the requested recordings would be sent. This has not happened.
Further calls on 24/03/2026, 25/03/2026, 30/03/2026, 07/04/2026, and 09/04/2026 yielded no progress, no feedback, and no accountability from any staff member. Each time, I was told someone would contact me, yet no one did.
On 08/04/2026, I was contacted by Lelo Msomi and informed again that my claim was declined. I immediately requested the formal decline letter, as well as the call recordings previously requested. Lelo advised that I will receive it in the next 2 hours, To date, I have received neither the policy documents, the call recordings, nor the written decline letter.
It is unacceptable that: • A policy was issued despite full disclosure, yet used against me at claims stage • No documentation has been provided despite repeated requests • Communication has been entirely one-sided • Staff continuously avoid calls and fail to follow through on commitments This experience reflects extremely poor customer service and raises serious concerns regarding transparency and fairness in claims handling.
It appears that OUTsurance prioritises sales and premium collection over client service and claims integrity.
I am formally requesting: 1. Immediate provision of the call recordings from policy inception 2. A written and detailed claim rejection letter
Should this matter not be resolved urgently, I will escalate it further to the relevant regulatory bodies.
Outcome expected: Urgent resolution, full transparency, and fair reassessment of my claim.
I have send through a formal dispute as per below to outsurance on the 14/04/2026. i only received an acknowledgement of the dispute but no resolution and no one made contact with me. Outsurance only calls and disconnect the call after 1 ring which shows a miss call. Pathetic service from them. After my vehicle was ****** I was still debited 2 premiums but only advised the they will reimburse me for 1 premium and that to not a fully refund, percentage which is totally unacceptable. I need the Dm for Claims to contact me urgently. should I receive no resolution or call by the end of today I will refer this to the ombudsman as outsurance has non regard for their clients.
Dear Sir/Madam,I hereby formally lodge a strict dispute and objection to the rejection of my theft claim under Policy Number OT*** and Claim Number ***, as communicated in your letter dated 13 April 2026.Your decision to reject my claim on the basis that a required security device (tracker) was not installed is unjustified, unreasonable, and inconsistent with the disclosures made at policy inception, and I require that this matter be urgently reviewed and overturned.
- Full Disclosure and Repeated Confirmation During Recorded Call
Throughout the recorded sales conversation at the inception of my policy, I consistently and clearly stated that my vehicle did not have a tracking device installed. This was not mentioned once in passing, but reiterated multiple times during the call to ensure full transparency.
- Advise that the absence of a tracking device would invalidate cover,
- Indicate that theft-related claims would be excluded, or
- Inform me that the installation of a tracker was a mandatory requirement for cover
- Explicit Representation of Comprehensive Cover
During the same recorded call, the consultant clearly advised that I would have comprehensive insurance cover, including but not limited to:
- Theft
- Hijacking
- Accidents
- Third-party liability
- Hail damage and related perils
- No Disclosure in Special Terms and Conditions
Furthermore, when the special terms and conditions were read out during the call, there was no mention whatsoever that:
- I would not have cover due to the absence of a tracking device, or
- A claim would be rejected on this basis
- Material Misrepresentation and Failure of Duty
In terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services (FAIS) Act and the Policyholder Protection Rules (PPR), OUTsurance is obligated to:
- Provide clear, accurate, and appropriate advice
- Disclose all material terms, conditions, and exclusions
- Ensure that the policyholder fully understands any requirements affecting cover
- Contradiction and Unfair Treatment
It is both unreasonable and procedurally unfair for OUTsurance to:
- Accept premiums with full knowledge that no tracking device was installed,
- Confirm comprehensive cover including theft, and
- Only rely on the absence of a tracker at claims stage to reject liability
- Supporting Evidence
I refer you to the recorded call, which will confirm that:
- I repeatedly disclosed that I did not have a tracking device
- The consultant confirmed that this was acceptable
- Comprehensive cover, including theft, was explicitly confirmed
- No exclusion or condition relating to a tracking device was communicated, even when terms and conditions were discussed
- Demand for Resolution
In light of the above, I hereby demand that:
- The rejection of my claim be immediately reconsidered
- The decision be overturned without delay
- My claim be honoured and paid in full
- Escalation
Should this matter not be resolved satisfactorily, I will proceed with escalation to:
- The National Financial Ombud Scheme (NFO)
- The FAIS Ombud, on the basis of failure to provide proper advice, material non-disclosure, and unfair claims handling
Mrs Sivakanthi Dhanraj
I have send through a formal dispute as per below to outsurance on the 14/04/2026. i only received an acknowledgement of the dispute but no resolution and no one made contact with me. Outsurance only calls and disconnect the call after 1 ring which shows a miss call. Pathetic service from them. After my vehicle was ****** I was still debited 2 premiums but only advised the they will reimburse me for 1 premium and that to not a fully refund, percentage which is totally unacceptable. I need the Dm for Claims to contact me urgently. should I receive no resolution or call by the end of today I will refer this to the ombudsman as outsurance has non regard for their clients.
Dear Sir/Madam,I hereby formally lodge a strict dispute and objection to the rejection of my theft claim under Policy Number OT*** and Claim Number ***, as communicated in your letter dated 13 April 2026.Your decision to reject my claim on the basis that a required security device (tracker) was not installed is unjustified, unreasonable, and inconsistent with the disclosures made at policy inception, and I require that this matter be urgently reviewed and overturned.
- Full Disclosure and Repeated Confirmation During Recorded Call
Throughout the recorded sales conversation at the inception of my policy, I consistently and clearly stated that my vehicle did not have a tracking device installed. This was not mentioned once in passing, but reiterated multiple times during the call to ensure full transparency.
- Advise that the absence of a tracking device would invalidate cover,
- Indicate that theft-related claims would be excluded, or
- Inform me that the installation of a tracker was a mandatory requirement for cover
- Explicit Representation of Comprehensive Cover
During the same recorded call, the consultant clearly advised that I would have comprehensive insurance cover, including but not limited to:
- Theft
- Hijacking
- Accidents
- Third-party liability
- Hail damage and related perils
- No Disclosure in Special Terms and Conditions
Furthermore, when the special terms and conditions were read out during the call, there was no mention whatsoever that:
- I would not have cover due to the absence of a tracking device, or
- A claim would be rejected on this basis
- Material Misrepresentation and Failure of Duty
In terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services (FAIS) Act and the Policyholder Protection Rules (PPR), OUTsurance is obligated to:
- Provide clear, accurate, and appropriate advice
- Disclose all material terms, conditions, and exclusions
- Ensure that the policyholder fully understands any requirements affecting cover
- Contradiction and Unfair Treatment
It is both unreasonable and procedurally unfair for OUTsurance to:
- Accept premiums with full knowledge that no tracking device was installed,
- Confirm comprehensive cover including theft, and
- Only rely on the absence of a tracker at claims stage to reject liability
- Supporting Evidence
I refer you to the recorded call, which will confirm that:
- I repeatedly disclosed that I did not have a tracking device
- The consultant confirmed that this was acceptable
- Comprehensive cover, including theft, was explicitly confirmed
- No exclusion or condition relating to a tracking device was communicated, even when terms and conditions were discussed
- Demand for Resolution
In light of the above, I hereby demand that:
- The rejection of my claim be immediately reconsidered
- The decision be overturned without delay
- My claim be honoured and paid in full
- Escalation
Should this matter not be resolved satisfactorily, I will proceed with escalation to:
- The National Financial Ombud Scheme (NFO)
- The FAIS Ombud, on the basis of failure to provide proper advice, material non-disclosure, and unfair claims handling
Mrs Sivakanthi Dhanraj