Quest Claims Solutions Dishonest & Cunning

On the 4th of April, I was knocked by the Omnisure client which is under OldMutual that directed me to questclaimins soutions

We were both driving towards the same direction, him on the compulsory turn-right lane and myself on the middle turn right/ drive straight lane. By the traffic lights, he decided to drive straight instead(speeding), knocking me off my lane before he flew off the bridge and landing on the freeway below.

I sent my claim to quest-claims, at first I dealt with Bongani who decided to decline my claim(because of what their client told them NOT the facts), when I requested a rejection letter, he then said they had decided not to reject the claim as their client had changed the story.

While waiting and calling everyday(countless times as they don't return calls, no matter how many times u leave messages) I was told my claim is now handled by Ronald who also didn't return calls nor respond to email until I finally got hold of him, and his excuse was the workload left by his predecessor.

When he finally got to my file, he was quick and active on both calls & emails and realised that their client was in a wrong however the offer is as follows: Total damage of my car = R53, 200, after aportioning the value of their client's car they offered to pay me R9,549.

When I asked about the reason for apportionment, I was referred to Act 34 of 1956 which refers to an oncoming traffic (which does not apply in my case) and told the offer is final

On trying to understand the apportionment, I asked the following questions:

1. Why am I referred to an act that does not apply on my case? 2. What was my contribution to an accident? 3. What I could have done to avoid the accident from happening?

I've asked these questions several times with no response to them but the "Offer is final" response instead. I have also emailed the manager Raeleen Pillay whose also not bothered to respond.

All this terrible experience has made me realise that quest-claims solutions is not honest on their offers and forcing clients to take whatever they offer to them without clients having to understand why they are offered that.

Their client was 100% wrong but they still apportion the offer and have audacity to refer to an Act that is not relevant to the case with an attitude of "Final offer"

I am still waiting for answers to my questions and ready to escalate the matter should i not be assisted in a manner that is fair and transparent.