Dissatisfaction with Current Claim Process, Poor Customer and Client Service

I am writing to express my deep dissatisfaction with the handling of my current claims. It has now been over two months since I logged the claim for my washing machine, which is covered under my household contents policy. When I joined Santam, I was assured that I would receive prompt and professional assistance in times of need. Unfortunately, this experience has been the opposite. Not only has the process taken far too long, but I was initially asked to find my own service provider to assess the damage, compile a report, and provide a quotation. I find this unreasonable and contrary to the expectations set when I became a client. . After several emails to my broker, Santam eventually arranged for someone to assess the contents. However, it then took another two weeks before I received feedback—and only after I followed up with my broker.

When I finally received the report, I was informed that the washing machine claim had been rejected due to pest infestation. I reviewed my policy schedule to confirm whether this exclusion was listed under “What we do not cover,” and to my surprise, it was not. My understanding is that any exclusions should be clearly stated in the policy schedule. Additionally, I included a microwave in the same claim, which broke down after the washing machine claim was submitted. The service provider indicated that the microwave failure was due to a faulty motor, possibly caused by a power surge—something I believe should be covered under my policy. Yet, the report rejected the entire contents claim without clear justification.

I contacted my broker for clarity and was advised that Santam determines what is covered regardless of whether it is listed in the policy schedule. This explanation is concerning and raises questions about transparency. Additionally, I included a microwave in the same claim, which broke down after the washing machine claim was submitted. The service provider indicated that the microwave failure was due to a faulty motor, possibly caused by a power surge—something I believe should be covered under my policy. Yet, the report rejected the entire contents claim without clear justification.

Regarding the building claim submitted at the same time, I was informed that it was declined due to wear and tear or gradual deterioration. This is problematic because the roof was repaired less than two years ago, and I shared this information with the assessor. He acknowledged that retouches are typically required every two years, but the damages in the sitting room are recent and worsening due to ongoing rain. The report also mentions “moulding,” which I do not understand, as the photos I submitted clearly show no mould in the sitting room ceiling.

I urgently request: 1. A detailed explanation of why these claims were rejected, particularly where exclusions are not listed in the policy schedule. 2. Clarification on the moulding reference in the building claim report. 3. A review of the contents claim, considering the service provider’s feedback regarding the microwave and washing machine.