Unhappy!!!

I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding the handling of my claim, which was logged via the app on 9 March 2026. The level of service, lack of transparency, and repeated failures in communication I have experienced are unacceptable and fall significantly short of expected standards. Following submission, I was contacted by John Khosa, to whom I provided all the required information and signed the necessary consent documentation. Thereafter, I was contacted by Seipati Makeketlane, who requested the same information again, along with additional details, advising that failure to comply by 12 March would result in my claim not being entertained. I comp**** fully and submitted all requested documentation on 11 March. On 12 March at 17:13, I was advised that my claim was under review, and on 16 March at 18:53, I was informed that my claim had been approved. However, no further guidance was provided regarding the next steps, which is a fundamental expectation following claim approval. On 19 March at 16:18, I received an email apologizing for delayed feedback and proposing a call at 18:00. I responded on 20 March requesting an earlier time; however, no call was made. On 23 March at 08:29, I followed up again via email requesting written confirmation of next steps. There was no response during the day, and I instead received a call at 16:02. During this call, I was informed for the first time of a penalty fee for alleged non-disclosure, without any prior warning or opportunity to address the alleged issue. Furthermore, on 24 March, I received communication stating that the call recording would not be released unless I signed a disclaimer restricting me from sharing the content, and that policy wording is for “educational purposes” only and does not outline internal processes. This position is both concerning and unacceptable, as it suggests that material information impacting clients is not transparently disclosed. Of particular concern: * I was informed of a penalty fee for alleged non-disclosure only on 23 March during the 16:02 call, with no prior indication during earlier engagements. * I requested access to the call recording and was advised that I must first sign a disclaimer restricting me from sharing the content. This requirement was never disclosed beforehand, nor is it clearly outlined in the policy documentation. * I was advised that policy wording is for “educational purposes” and does not necessarily reflect internal processes. This raises serious concerns about transparency, especially where such processes directly affect clients. * I have repeatedly requested feedback regarding the third party involved in my claim, including my follow-up on 23 March, which has not been addressed to date. * I have been directed to a panel beater over 30km away without a clear explanation of the criteria used to select this service provider, which was discussed during the call on 23 March. Given the above, I require the following to be addressed as a matter of urgency: 1. A clear, written outline of the next steps required from my side following claim approval. 2. Full clarification regarding the alleged non-disclosure and the basis for the penalty fee. 3. Access to the call recording without unreasonable conditions, or a clear policy reference supporting such requirements. 4. A response regarding the third party and any contact made with them. 5. An explanation of how service providers are allocated, particularly in cases where proximity is a concern. I trust that this matter will now be handled with the urgency and transparency it requires. Should I not receive satisfactory feedback, I will have no choice but to escalate this matter further.