Santam Insurance: 22 Days, No Validation, No Care for Clients

Santam Insurance: 22 Days, No Validation, No Care for Clients It is now 22 days since I lodged my motor vehicle accident claim (15 August 2025) with Santam, and my vehicle remains untouched, exposed, and in disrepair — incurring storage risks and costs. The experience reflects an insurer that does not act in good faith and shows no regard for its client’s wellbeing.

Timeline of Delays: 15 Aug: Claim lodged. Consultant (Jolinda January) and desktop assessor (Zoleka) made contact but Zoleka admitted she couldn’t validate and said another assessor would be appointed. Damien Miller was assigned but never contacted me. 21 Aug (Day 7): I called Jolinda for updates. No progress. She said she’d contact panel beaters and legal team (third-party matter). To date, no contact from legal. 22 Aug (Day 8): New assessor, Riaz Mahomed, appointed. Only on 25 Aug (Day 11) did I call him and made contact — 10 lost days. Riaz said that he called me on 22Aug but there was no communication via phone/email/watsapp on that day. 26 Aug (Day 12): Riaz sends an invasive access request (phone records, tracking logs, EDR, CCTV) with no explanation. I signed on 27 Aug to avoid delays. 1 Sep (Day 18): No feedback, so I lodged a complaint. Santam appointed Lihle Kayise, who provided a misleading “timeline” claiming there were no delays. She avoided my direct questions on claims turnaround standards. 2 Sep (Day 19): After my complaint, Riaz finally called — a full 7 days after I’d already signed consent. He admitted he needed my help to follow up with Netstar, which I did and he blamed Netsrar for the delay. 3–4 Sep (Days 20–21): I once again asked Santam’s complaints office for clear resolution timelines and their official turnaround standards. No response. The Reality: 10 days lost before proper validation even began. 7 days wasted before the assessor acted on signed consent. Zero accountability from complaints handling. No transparency on claims process standards. My vehicle has sat exposed to weather and vandalism, incurring costs while Santam drags its feet. This is not insurance — it is avoidance and delay tactics designed to frustrate clients. Santam, your actions demonstrate that you are more concerned with repudiation and obstruction than honouring your duty of good faith. Clients deserve better.