Lightning Damage Claim Delay – Lost Trust in Insurer

I Pay for a Service, Not Delays: Subcontractor Chaos and Mismanagement Destroying Trust

Since my initial review, the handling of my legitimate lightning damage claim has deteriorated to the point where I have completely lost trust in this insurer and their subcontractors.

I am the paying client: Let me make this clear — I pay my premiums to this insurer for a service, not the other way around. As a paying client, I expect professional, efficient, and timely service. The current handling of my claim falls far short of these expectations.No direct communication: My insurer has never contacted me directly. All interactions have been routed through subcontractors:

Digicall Assessing Solutions (Pty) Ltd, the assessor, is a subcontractor of the insurer. I was informed that Allyssa Potgieter DT would be in contact shortly.
Repair On Call is a subcontractor of the assessor.

This layered subcontracting system has caused delays, confusion, and complete dependence on intermediaries, which is inefficient and unprofessional.

Irrelevant and poorly managed communication: Following my initial review, I received a call from a company acting on behalf of my insurer. During the call, I was asked:

Whether my damaged items were still under warranty — despite this being a lightning damage claim with an accredited repair report confirming all items are beyond repair?The sizes of the TVs — information already clearly documented in my claim?

These questions were irrelevant, repetitive, and unnecessary, demonstrating a lack of preparation and respect for the client.Strict boundaries and safety: I am granting Repair On Call access to my private property strictly for the collection of damaged items. They are to collect the items, leave a collection document, and depart immediately. No on-site testing will be permitted, as I have an elderly mother at home, and her safety and privacy must be respected.

Unreasonable expectations: Repair on Call's WhatsApp request that I ensure power during load-shedding is completely unreasonable, given transformer and substation failures in the Vaal Triangle area, which are entirely beyond my control.

Financial impact: The drawn-out handling of this claim has caused a loss of 36 hours of income from my secondary employment. These lost hours are a direct consequence of the insurer’s inefficiency and poor coordination.

Unnecessary bureaucracy: I understand that a second assessment is required because the claim exceeds R10 000. However, this should have been clearly communicated from the outset. Instead, I was expected to take all damaged items to an accredited repairer at my own expense, only to be informed later that a second assessment is still required. This represents avoidable effort and wasted time, which could have been prevented with proper initial guidance.

Double standard: I pay my premiums punctually every month, yet my legitimate claim has faced unnecessary delays and mismanagement. This demonstrates a clear disconnect between the insurer’s financial expectations and their obligation to provide professional service.

In conclusion, the combination of subcontractor inefficiency, irrelevant communication, unsafe practices, financial loss, and avoidable bureaucracy has completely eroded any confidence I had in this insurer. As a paying client, I expect immediate, direct action on my claim, or this matter will be further escalated.