Bad service
<p>Good day,</p> <p>I have been involved in a motor vehicle accident last year and the guilty party **** under oath. I contacted her, but she insisted that I deal with PSG Insure. I contacted Natasha Botha, but the service was extremely unprofessional and she was very unhelpful which I think is not what PSG Insure would like to stand for.</p>
Hi Mr Potgieter
Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. We will investigate the matter and revert with more information as soon as possible.
Regards
PSG Insure
Hi Mr Potgieter
Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. We will investigate the matter and revert with more information as soon as possible.
Regards
PSG Insure
Dear Mr Potgieter
Having investigated the matter we understand that the claims were handled directly by Santam (the insurer for both you and our client). It would be best for you to deal directly with your insurer and broker.
Thank you
PSG Insure
Dear Mr Potgieter
Having investigated the matter we understand that the claims were handled directly by Santam (the insurer for both you and our client). It would be best for you to deal directly with your insurer and broker.
Thank you
PSG Insure
Thank you very much for the response - much appreciated. Unfortunately I had to log a second complaint regarding ********* behavioiur as I was sent an email where Ms Botha informed her client in writing that she should not admit the correct sequence of events to me. I was hoping that she would advise her client to actually tell the truth. Regards, Tinus Potgieter
Thank you very much for the response - much appreciated. Unfortunately I had to log a second complaint regarding ********* behavioiur as I was sent an email where Ms Botha informed her client in writing that she should not admit the correct sequence of events to me. I was hoping that she would advise her client to actually tell the truth. Regards, Tinus Potgieter
Just to be clear - I do not expect feedback on this reply. I just think that this information should be in the public domain.
Unfortunately I was unaware that one is not supposed to post more than one review for the same issue and PSG Insure as a business deleted the thread below, which I believe should be visible to the public.
PSG Insure condones and defends ********* behaviour
Good day,
It truly is a sad day when one realises that a company like PSG Insure not only condones, but defends ********* behaviour. When complaining about 'bad service' I recieved a response within one hour, but when complaining about '********* behaviour' the response time was 104hours (4 and a half days).
It really is disappointing to see that in an industry where the truth and integrity is everything, PSG Insure chooses to employ individuals who (despite having all facts) encourages their clients to not tell the truth when given the opportunity.
I understand that PSG has no control over there clients telling lies under oath, but I do ask that their employees maintain good broker-practices based on integrity going forward as well as that their employees do not leave paper-trails which could do damage to their careers.
Find below the true sequence of events.
True sequence of events:
1. An accident happened
2. Two affidavits were submitted to the insurer - one with the correct sequence of events and one with a lie under oath.
3. The insurer could not make a ruling as all they only had contradictory statements.
4. Supportive documentation was submitted indicating that the one client **** under oath.
5. The 'small court procedure' were initiated by myself of which the first step is to ask the party who **** under oath to change her statement to the correct sequence of events.
6. At this point an employee of PSG Insure (with full view of all the supportive documentation implicating that her client **** under oath) encouraged her client in writing to not tell the truth.
7. I posted a hellopeter complaint and PSG Insure defended the employee without even having the accurate facts.
Regards
Tinus
Apr 26, 2017
1 hour ago
Official business reply:
Dear Mr Potgieter
As indicated in our previous post, when you accused PSG of condoning ********* behaviour we requested our compliance department to look into the matter. This is why the reply to your second post took longer.
We refer to our previous response on your previous post which reads:
As both parties involved in the accident were insured through the same company, the final decision in this matter was made by the insurer. It is important to note that PSG had no discretion regarding this decision. The insurer conveyed their final decision - that blame could not be apportioned to just one party - to both parties involved in the accident. At this time, you had the right to contest the decision by providing documentation supporting your version of events. However, no supporting documentation was submitted to the insurer.
The client asked our employee to assist her when she was being put under pressure to change her version of the events. This request was made after the insurer had taken the above-mentioned decision. Her assistance after the fact could not have influenced the decision taken by the insurer in any way. Therefore, we view your allegations as unfounded and without merit.
The insurer has already recommended that you explore the legal avenues available to you where your version of the events can be tested. We therefore view this matter as closed from our side.
Regards
PSG Insure
Apr 26, 2017
1 hour ago
tinus-potgieter:
Hi,
Thank you very much for the prompt reponse - much appreciated. I think you'll agree that I would also have appreciated a heads-up that the previous response might take longer given that the compliance department had to look into it.
I do not contest the fact that the final decision **** with the Insurer at all - I understand and agree with that. The client was not put under any pressure to change her sequence of events, she was merely asked to correct a mistake she made and the fact remains that your employee refused to give her this opportunity.
The facts speak for itself and I'll leave it to yourselves and the public having visibility of this interaction to draw their own conclusions.
I'm merely asking that should your employees encourage clients to stick to the lies they tell under oath AFTER a decision has been by the Insurer, that they should at least not leave a paper trial confirming that that is the principle base they are working from.
Regards
Tinus
Apr 26, 2017
23 minutes ago
Official business reply:
As already stated we view this matter as closed from our side and recommend that this matter be addressed in court where the facts can be tested.
Just to be clear - I do not expect feedback on this reply. I just think that this information should be in the public domain.
Unfortunately I was unaware that one is not supposed to post more than one review for the same issue and PSG Insure as a business deleted the thread below, which I believe should be visible to the public.
PSG Insure condones and defends ********* behaviour
Good day,
It truly is a sad day when one realises that a company like PSG Insure not only condones, but defends ********* behaviour. When complaining about 'bad service' I recieved a response within one hour, but when complaining about '********* behaviour' the response time was 104hours (4 and a half days).
It really is disappointing to see that in an industry where the truth and integrity is everything, PSG Insure chooses to employ individuals who (despite having all facts) encourages their clients to not tell the truth when given the opportunity.
I understand that PSG has no control over there clients telling lies under oath, but I do ask that their employees maintain good broker-practices based on integrity going forward as well as that their employees do not leave paper-trails which could do damage to their careers.
Find below the true sequence of events.
True sequence of events:
1. An accident happened
2. Two affidavits were submitted to the insurer - one with the correct sequence of events and one with a lie under oath.
3. The insurer could not make a ruling as all they only had contradictory statements.
4. Supportive documentation was submitted indicating that the one client **** under oath.
5. The 'small court procedure' were initiated by myself of which the first step is to ask the party who **** under oath to change her statement to the correct sequence of events.
6. At this point an employee of PSG Insure (with full view of all the supportive documentation implicating that her client **** under oath) encouraged her client in writing to not tell the truth.
7. I posted a hellopeter complaint and PSG Insure defended the employee without even having the accurate facts.
Regards
Tinus
Apr 26, 2017
1 hour ago
Official business reply:
Dear Mr Potgieter
As indicated in our previous post, when you accused PSG of condoning ********* behaviour we requested our compliance department to look into the matter. This is why the reply to your second post took longer.
We refer to our previous response on your previous post which reads:
As both parties involved in the accident were insured through the same company, the final decision in this matter was made by the insurer. It is important to note that PSG had no discretion regarding this decision. The insurer conveyed their final decision - that blame could not be apportioned to just one party - to both parties involved in the accident. At this time, you had the right to contest the decision by providing documentation supporting your version of events. However, no supporting documentation was submitted to the insurer.
The client asked our employee to assist her when she was being put under pressure to change her version of the events. This request was made after the insurer had taken the above-mentioned decision. Her assistance after the fact could not have influenced the decision taken by the insurer in any way. Therefore, we view your allegations as unfounded and without merit.
The insurer has already recommended that you explore the legal avenues available to you where your version of the events can be tested. We therefore view this matter as closed from our side.
Regards
PSG Insure
Apr 26, 2017
1 hour ago
tinus-potgieter:
Hi,
Thank you very much for the prompt reponse - much appreciated. I think you'll agree that I would also have appreciated a heads-up that the previous response might take longer given that the compliance department had to look into it.
I do not contest the fact that the final decision **** with the Insurer at all - I understand and agree with that. The client was not put under any pressure to change her sequence of events, she was merely asked to correct a mistake she made and the fact remains that your employee refused to give her this opportunity.
The facts speak for itself and I'll leave it to yourselves and the public having visibility of this interaction to draw their own conclusions.
I'm merely asking that should your employees encourage clients to stick to the lies they tell under oath AFTER a decision has been by the Insurer, that they should at least not leave a paper trial confirming that that is the principle base they are working from.
Regards
Tinus
Apr 26, 2017
23 minutes ago
Official business reply:
As already stated we view this matter as closed from our side and recommend that this matter be addressed in court where the facts can be tested.
Good day,
I would just like to confirm that as per your last statement - the matter has been addressed in court and the judge has clearly indicated that there is sufficient evidence that both the Client as well as PSG insure (Tygervalley) behaved *********ly.
Should PSG Insure actually stand for the values they stand for, it would be obvious that the matter should therefore be re-opened and investigated as it is condemning evidence that a PSG employee **** in black and white and encouraged a client to not tell the truth.
Regards
Tinus Potgieter
Good day,
I would just like to confirm that as per your last statement - the matter has been addressed in court and the judge has clearly indicated that there is sufficient evidence that both the Client as well as PSG insure (Tygervalley) behaved *********ly.
Should PSG Insure actually stand for the values they stand for, it would be obvious that the matter should therefore be re-opened and investigated as it is condemning evidence that a PSG employee **** in black and white and encouraged a client to not tell the truth.
Regards
Tinus Potgieter
Dear Mr Potgieter
As we are not privy to the ruling made by the Small Claims Court, we are unable to comment on its findings. We ask that you please make the documentation available to us, so that we can look into the matter. One of our representatives will be in contact with you directly to facilitate this.
Regards
PSG Insure
Dear Mr Potgieter
As we are not privy to the ruling made by the Small Claims Court, we are unable to comment on its findings. We ask that you please make the documentation available to us, so that we can look into the matter. One of our representatives will be in contact with you directly to facilitate this.
Regards
PSG Insure
Thank you for the response - much appreciated. I'll gladly assist.
Thank you for the response - much appreciated. I'll gladly assist.
Dear Mr Potgieter
Having reviewed the ruling by the Small Claims Court, we have found no reference to ********* behaviour. However, we are pleased that we were able to advise you to approach the court, and that you were able to satisfy your claim. We therefore view the matter as closed from our side.
Regards
PSG Insure
Dear Mr Potgieter
Having reviewed the ruling by the Small Claims Court, we have found no reference to ********* behaviour. However, we are pleased that we were able to advise you to approach the court, and that you were able to satisfy your claim. We therefore view the matter as closed from our side.
Regards
PSG Insure
Just for the record: PSG never advised me to approach the court, Santam did. As for the closed matter - it is also closed from my side as I have been reimbursed, but it is good to know that PSG condones the fact that their employees encourages their clients to lie on formal documents. As this goes against my principles (and should go against PSG's principles), I'll insure that Santam investigates the matter. Regards Tinus
Just for the record: PSG never advised me to approach the court, Santam did. As for the closed matter - it is also closed from my side as I have been reimbursed, but it is good to know that PSG condones the fact that their employees encourages their clients to lie on formal documents. As this goes against my principles (and should go against PSG's principles), I'll insure that Santam investigates the matter. Regards Tinus