1 reviews | Active since Oct 2013
Despicable Service or Lack Thereof from Santam
I write to lodge a formal complaint regarding the premature and wholly unjustified closure of my claim, Claim Number ***, without any service having been rendered or my plumbing issue having been resolved in any way.
I submitted a claim under the Home Assist benefit for a plumbing emergency involving leaking flexi pipes under my sink. Santam, through its third-party service provider Europ Assistance, subcontracted the job to CM Mbewe Plumbing. A plumber attended the property and, upon assessment, advised that the sink would need to be dislodged in order to access and replace the flexi pipes which is a standard and logical requirement for this type of repair. CM Mbewe Plumbing declined to proceed with this, meaning no work was carried out whatsoever.
I must also place on record that the representative from CM Mbewe Plumbing, Princess, conducted herself in an unprofessional manner during this interaction. I was charged a call-out fee for a visit that yielded absolutely nothing, which I find completely unacceptable.
Despite my explicitly informing Santam's consultant that no service was rendered, and despite my specific request that she provide me with the relevant Terms and Conditions governing the replacement of flexi pipes — including whether the policy excludes the necessary dislodging of a sink in order to complete such a repair, the consultant closed my claim without addressing any of these concerns and without providing the requested documentation 5 mins later.
Furthermore, during our call, the consultant suggested that I would require Building Insurance to cover this claim. This is both incorrect and deeply concerning. My Home Assist cover explicitly includes the call-out fee and the first hour of labour for plumbing repairs. The dislodging of the sink is not a separate or additional claim — it is the only means of gaining access to the flexi pipe and is therefore an integral and inseparable part of the repair itself. To suggest that this falls outside Home Assist and requires Building Insurance is either a fundamental misunderstanding of my policy on the part of your consultant, or a deliberate attempt to avoid honoring a legitimate claim. Either way, it is unacceptable.
This raises serious questions:
1. How is a flexi pipe expected to be replaced without dislodging the sink? If your appointed contractor is unwilling or unable to perform the work correctly, that is a failure of service delivery not grounds for claim closure. 2. The consultant's assertion that Building Insurance is required is factually incorrect. The cost of gaining access to a pipe in order to repair it falls squarely within the scope of Home Assist cover. 3. I was never provided with the Terms and Conditions I specifically requested, which I am entitled to as a policyholder. 4. Call-out fee for a service that was not rendered. I expect this to be returned for the amount of service requests allowable on my policy which is 3.
The claim was closed without my consent, without resolution, and without any satisfactory explanation.
I formally demand the following:
1. The immediate reopening of Claim ***. A full copy of the relevant Terms and Conditions pertaining to flexi pipe replacement and any related exclusions 3. A written clarification of exactly what my Home Assist cover includes, specifically regarding access costs forming part of a covered repair 4. The refund of the call-out feeservice request, given that no service was performed 5. A formal written response addressing each of the above points within 5 business days
I have been a loyal Santam policyholder for a number of years, and this experience has seriously undermined my confidence in both Santam and its appointed service providers. Should this matter not be resolved to my satisfaction, I will have no option but to consider other insurance providers and pursue all further avenues available to me for resolution.
A job card is standard and mandatory procedure for any home assist call-out, serving as the only legitimate record of what transpired.
Without a signed job card, Santam has no grounds whatsoever to close this claim. I am appalled that this was done regardless, and I demand a full explanation with supporting documentation justifying the decision to close Claim ***.
A job card is standard and mandatory procedure for any home assist call-out, serving as the only legitimate record of what transpired.
Without a signed job card, Santam has no grounds whatsoever to close this claim. I am appalled that this was done regardless, and I demand a full explanation with supporting documentation justifying the decision to close Claim ***.
I have received your response dated 4 May 2026 and I reject it entirely. The response is one-sided, factually inaccurate, and fails to address the actual substance of my complaint. I will address each misrepresentation directly.
1. I did not decline the service - CM Mbewe Plumbing refused to proceed Your response states that "the client declined the additional labour required to complete the repair correctly and safely." This is categorically false and I dispute it in the strongest possible terms. It was the CM Mbewe Plumbing representative, Princess, who advised that they could not dislodge the sink and attributed this directly to what the insurance would and would not allow. She made the decision to tell attending plumber to leave without completing the repair (an hour had not even passed). At no point was I presented with a formal option, a quotation for additional costs, or any documentation requesting my approval to proceed. I was not given a choice, the contractor walked away. I challenge Santam to produce a signed job card or any written evidence bearing my signature confirming that I declined to proceed. No such document exists because none was presented to me.
2. Your own response confirms the repair required basin removal, so why was the claim closed? Your response acknowledges that removing the basin is standard plumbing practice in confined installations and was the correct approach. If that is so, then the question Santam must answer is this: why was a contractor dispatched who was either unwilling or unauthorised to perform this standard procedure? That is a failure of service deployment on Santam's part, not a basis for closing my claim.
3. The consultant's conduct has not been addressed at all Your response makes no mention whatsoever of the Santam consultant who called me and incorrectly advised that I would need Building Insurance to cover this claim. This is a serious misrepresentation an my Home Assist cover includes the call-out fee and first hour of labour, and the cost of gaining access to a covered component including basin removal is inseparable from the repair itself. This misinformation was never acknowledged or corrected in your response.
4. The call-out fee remains disputed A call-out fee was charged for a repair that was never carried out. Your justification that the contractor "attended site, conducted an assessment, and provided a technically sound repair solution" does not constitute service rendered. An assessment alone does not resolve a leaking flexi pipe. The problem remains unresolved. I wanted to proceed and the contractor said insurance does not allow them to continue with service, so enlighten me "HOW DID I DECLINE SERVICE AGAIN?".
I am not satisfied with this response and I will be escalating this matter to the other channels available to me immediately. I am also sharing the response I received publicly as it reflects a pattern of dismissing legitimate client complaints through biased, one-sided reviews that ignore documented facts.
I expect Santam to reopen this claim, send a competent contractor to complete the repair properly, and use that same call out fee for this claim complaint Anything short of that will be addressed through every formal channel available to me.
I have received your response dated 4 May 2026 and I reject it entirely. The response is one-sided, factually inaccurate, and fails to address the actual substance of my complaint. I will address each misrepresentation directly.
1. I did not decline the service - CM Mbewe Plumbing refused to proceed Your response states that "the client declined the additional labour required to complete the repair correctly and safely." This is categorically false and I dispute it in the strongest possible terms. It was the CM Mbewe Plumbing representative, Princess, who advised that they could not dislodge the sink and attributed this directly to what the insurance would and would not allow. She made the decision to tell attending plumber to leave without completing the repair (an hour had not even passed). At no point was I presented with a formal option, a quotation for additional costs, or any documentation requesting my approval to proceed. I was not given a choice, the contractor walked away. I challenge Santam to produce a signed job card or any written evidence bearing my signature confirming that I declined to proceed. No such document exists because none was presented to me.
2. Your own response confirms the repair required basin removal, so why was the claim closed? Your response acknowledges that removing the basin is standard plumbing practice in confined installations and was the correct approach. If that is so, then the question Santam must answer is this: why was a contractor dispatched who was either unwilling or unauthorised to perform this standard procedure? That is a failure of service deployment on Santam's part, not a basis for closing my claim.
3. The consultant's conduct has not been addressed at all Your response makes no mention whatsoever of the Santam consultant who called me and incorrectly advised that I would need Building Insurance to cover this claim. This is a serious misrepresentation an my Home Assist cover includes the call-out fee and first hour of labour, and the cost of gaining access to a covered component including basin removal is inseparable from the repair itself. This misinformation was never acknowledged or corrected in your response.
4. The call-out fee remains disputed A call-out fee was charged for a repair that was never carried out. Your justification that the contractor "attended site, conducted an assessment, and provided a technically sound repair solution" does not constitute service rendered. An assessment alone does not resolve a leaking flexi pipe. The problem remains unresolved. I wanted to proceed and the contractor said insurance does not allow them to continue with service, so enlighten me "HOW DID I DECLINE SERVICE AGAIN?".
I am not satisfied with this response and I will be escalating this matter to the other channels available to me immediately. I am also sharing the response I received publicly as it reflects a pattern of dismissing legitimate client complaints through biased, one-sided reviews that ignore documented facts.
I expect Santam to reopen this claim, send a competent contractor to complete the repair properly, and use that same call out fee for this claim complaint Anything short of that will be addressed through every formal channel available to me.