SANTAM INSURANCE CONTINUES VICTIMIZATION OF CLIENT AND EX EMPLOYEE SANTAM CLAIM AND NFOSA REF NFOSA REF: REF W109/23 - SANTAM CLAIM NUMBER: ***

This email explains enough of what I have to say about SANTAM INSURANCE.

UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS NOT SANTAM THEMSELVES, BUT MANAGERS THAT WERE AT SANTAM THAT WERE WHISTLEBLEWN AGAINST AND THEY VICTIMISED THEIR OWN CLIENT AND EX EMPLOYEE FOR WHISTLEBLOWING ON THEM AND ALSO WENT AHEAD AND FURTHER REFUSED TO SETTLE A LEGIMATE CLAIM.

IF I HAVE THE SPACE ON THIS, WATCH AS I PUBLISH DOCUMENTS RELATED TO HOW SANTAM HAS POWER OVER THE OSTI (NFOSA SHORT TERM INSURANCE). THIS COMPLAINT IS ALSO AGAINST THE NFOSA THAT STAND ACCUSED OF BEING INFLUENCED BY THE LARGEST SHORT TERM INSURER IN THE RSA AND THIS WILL DEFINITELY BE SHARED IN THE UK AS WELL WHERE SANTAM INTENDS TO OPEN OFFICES.

IF THE SANTAM BOARD CANNOT PROTECT THE STAFF AS WHISTLEBLOWERS AND BELIEVE IN *******ED MANAGERS, THEN THIS IS IN THE INTERESTS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT LARGE.

________________________________________ From: *** <***> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 08:53 AM To: FSCA Complaints & Enquiries <***> Cc: ; Viviene Pearson <*********>; *********>; *********xx @nfosa.co.za> Subject: Re: Acknowledgement of Complaint Received - Ref No: 1-388614 - NFOSA REF: REF W109/23 - SANTAM CLAIM NUMBER: ***

Good Day.

Thank you for taking this matter up for me.

The notification is late.

However, this extended into 2025, and I was hoping SANTAM would eventually sort the matter out pending a current High Court matter playing out in the High Court of Pretoria against the Complainant who is a "Whistle Blower".

SANTAM stands accused of victimization of the Complainant by the very Managers that were "Whistle Blown" on by the Complainant who is an ex-employee of SANTAM in the motor claims department under Heavy Haulage, namely COE. (Centre of Excellence)

The Complainant is also a Specialist Assessor on Heavy Haulage vehicles and an Ex Manager at SANTAM in the Motor Claims space and was a senior manager on the Heavy Haulage Claims Committee, where serious decisions are made where such decisions are based on facts, fairness, TCF, materiality and other .

The NFOSA/ OSTI and SAIA also stand accused of complicity with SANTAM and equally should be investigated for their role in being part of the victimization against the Complainant.

The CEO of SANTAM is on the NFOSA/ OSTI Board. The CEO of SAIA is on the NFOSA/ OSTI Board.

The request is for:

A full scale investigation to occur against SANTAM, The NFOSA, and SAIA. Hefty fines should be issued against all entities based on the outcome of the investigation. The Complainant is settled in full, including all costs of assessing, reports and storage. (Amounting to app R600 000-00) This matter is made available to the General Public at Large as it is in the Public Interest to know what is happening in institutions that the public has trust in, that are supposed to be impartial and not allow themselves to be manipulated by companies such as SANTAM. To allow the Complainant to assist the FSCA in doing a full scale investigation and also extending this investigation into other matters that the Complainant as an Ex- Employee of SANTAM is fully aware of facts relating to Non-Compliance to the FSCA and the Competition Act amongst other.

All documents will follow on this matter.

Kind Regards.

Quentin Pedlar.

NFOSA-SHORT TERM INSURANCE ***/ 23 PROVISIONAL RULING REJECTED BY INSURED DATED 5 JULY 2024 Rechecked and corrected 21 July 2024. See response as highlighted below each paragraph only where necessary. To be noted, the below document was copied and transferred to a word document and the setup and design of the response is not exactly that of the Provisional Recommendation and that no sentence or word has been altered. This document is to respond to each on the paragraphs as set out by the writer thereof. (Apologies to use red, bold and capital letters. It is only used to draw specific attention to a critical detail not taken into account. Please do not take offence to the use thereof.) The response is by QJ Wild Pedlar. 05 July 2024 Attention : Wild Pedlar, Terrence E-mail/Facsimile : ***, *** Dear Sir/Madam, Insurer : Santam Ltd Policy/Claim number : *** / *** Our ***/23 Provisional Ruling 1. We refer to the above matter and previous correspondence. 2. This matter was referred to and discussed by the Escalation Committee, comprising the Lead Ombud and Senior Adjudicators. 3. The complainant is Mr T Wild Pedlar (the policyholder). We note that throughout the subsistence of this matter, we have received correspondence from Mr T Wild Pedlar and Mr Q Wild Pedlar (noted as the regular P a g e | 2 driver of the vehicle in the policy). Submissions made by both the complainant and Mr Q Wild Pedlar were considered by our office. 4. The participant is Santam Ltd. 5. The Assistant Ombudsman issued a Provisional Recommendation that concluded as follows: Response- SANTAM contradicts the above statement by the WAIDLER report. SANTAM agrees that extensive damages to the vehicle occurred, and the only problem is that the claim was registered after 30 days. With SANTAM agreeing to the fact that damage did occur due to the rain water entering the vehicle, is in itself an admission to confirm that the vehicle was damaged irrespective of the 30 day period. P a g e | 3 The only issue SANTAM has stated is hat they were prejudice due to the late notification. Further they state that due to the vehicle being stripped, has further prejudiced SANATM. This is an extremely important detail that has failed to be mentioned in this feedback from yourselves. Since SANTAM agrees that extensive damage occurred, where is the prejudice to the insured? Per their own admission, the problem arose due to the late notifications outside of the 30 day period. See below. (Extract Page 4 of ANX 6 First Paragraph after the comments per “points” as attached.) Therefore, by SANTAMS OWN ADMISSION, the entire matter revolves around the 30 day period, for which the claim was rejected for. The question is now raised as to what is the relevance of anything else besides the 30 day issue. It is therefore factual, that SANTAM agrees to the extensive damage at the date of loss, and that there is a material connection between the damage on the date of loss and the date of reporting the claim on 29 March 2023. Their issues of concern are with the resultant damage and stripping of the vehicle. It was never expected for SANTAM to pay for any resultant damage. In order to find damage, the vehicle has to be stripped, and since this is a water claim, damage cannot be determined unless the vehicle is first diagnosed with a Diagnostic test on the vehicle. A donor vehicle was obtained to replace damaged electrical items from the water, and any other damage would be repaired at own costs with parts from the donor vehicle, which makes the claim a repair, and I have explicitly explained that I do not want to write off the vehicle. Instead SANTAM rejected the claim only on the 30 day basis of the policy as below extract of the rejection letter advising that the claim process was not followed and there was a delay in notifying SANTAM about the incident which was prejudicial to the claim process, in that SANTAM was unable to Assess the damage promptly and accurately when the incident occurred. SANTAM further incorrectly claims that the vehicle claim was only reported on 22 June 2023. P a g e | 4 Santam has further not followed a proper claims procedure, in that they have ignored that the claim was registered on 22 June 2023, which is untrue. The claim was registered on 29 March 2023. The OSTI has agreed with SANTAM on this matter, and that the Broker being an intermediatery, failed to report the claim, and that the Insured cannot rely on the intermediatory to Register the claim as they are not SANTAM. This view is rejected by the Insured, being an Ex Specialist Assessor, Assessors Manager, Claims Moderator, Senior Member of the Heavy Haulage Claims Committee , and 2 IC of the Heavy Haulage Motor Claims Division known as COE. (Centre of Excellence.) It is of critical importance to note that although they acknowledge the damage to the vehicle by water (Excessive Damage), at THEIR own their admission above by Nuraan Goudia, how are they suffering prejudice when they agree that the loss occurred. THE ONLY PREJUDICE THEY HAVE SUFFERED IS THAT THE CLAIM WAS NOT REPORTED IN THE 30 DAY PERIOD. AGAIN, IT IS RECOGNISED THAT THERE IS INDEED RESULTANT DAMAGE DUE TO MOLD ETC, AND THIS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLAIM ITSELF IF THEY HAD NEGOTIATED WITH MYSELF TO EXCLUDE ANY RESULTANT DAMAGE AND COME TO AN AGREED AMOUNT, INSTEAD OF SIMPLY REJECTING THE CLAIM BASED ON THE 30 DAY PERIOD. There is no claimed amount for any resultant damages. They further claim that they are prejudiced in that they will not get the correct salvage figure/ amount for the vehicle as part of the interior had been stripped. The above in contrary to what the Insured stated in that the vehicle must not be written off. P a g e | 5 6. Mr Q Wild Pedlar did not agree with the provisional recommendation and requested that the matter be escalated. Mr Q Wild Pedlar raised dissatisfaction with the Assistant Ombudsman’s handling of the matter and submitted that all the information supp**** by Mr Q Wild Pedlar was not considered in the Provisional Recommendation. Response-None of the information given to the Assistant Ombudsman was ever considered. The response lacked factual information from every aspect of the claim itself. It was further submitted that the delays of answering emails and telephone calls added to the notion that the OSTI is acting under the influence of SANTAM to delay the outcome of the claim complaint. The proof of delays is available. 7. The Assistant Ombudsman then issued a Final Recommendation that concluded as follows: 8. In response to the Final Recommendation, Mr Q Wild Pedlar submitted a complaint regarding the Assistant Ombudsman’s handling of the complaint stating that the Assistant Ombudsman did not escalate the matter as he undertook to do. Instead, provisional recommendation was made. The final recommendation was made before the 7 day time period in the provisional recommendation had lapsed, and the Provisional and Final Recommendations did not contain the information provided by Mr Q Wild Pedlar. 9. The complaint was referred to the Escalation Committee who considered the matter afresh. Our findings are set out below. Complaint regarding the handling of the matter by the Assistant Ombudsman 10. We have in previous correspondence, advised the complainant and Mr Q Wild Pedlar that the issuing of a provisional recommendation and final recommendation before escalating the matter is the correct process to be followed. If a response to a provisional recommendation is received before the 7-day time period has lapsed P a g e | 6 and we are in a position to make a final recommendation, we do not need to wait the full 7 days before proceeding. If the complainant/Mr Q Wild Pedlar required more time to make further submissions, this could have been requested. Response-This is an unacceptable excuse and lacks factual information. The information was already handed to the Assistant Ombudsman prior to the Provision Recommendation. There was no need to provide more information at the time, as it had already been supp****, and it is due to this reason, that the Provisional and the Final recommendation was rejected by the Insured as invalid, *********** and was due to mere pressure on the Assistant Ombudsman after various complaints were lodged against him, where it was alleged by the Insured that SANTAM played a role in the decision of the claim Final Recommendation and all of the delays and failures to communicate with the Insured on both emails and returning calls. The Assistant Ombudsman could not find the information as emailed to him from the Insured on his laptop, and had to be shown by the Insured to the Assistant Ombudsman and resent on email. The Assistant Ombudsman could not even find the memory stick to view the information on the memory stick of the video taken at Audi Menlyn. This is noted to be a purposeful delay of the claim by the Assistant Ombudsman, to stall the outcome of the complaint, thereby creating the notion of the involvement of SANTAM being the influencing factor of the delays, failure to answer emails, failure to return calls, and most importantly to ignore the information supp**** by the Insured prior to any Provisional Recommendation. (Copies of these emails are available as proof.) 11. In terms of our process, a matter cannot be escalated before the final recommendation is made. However, we agree that the complainant and Mr Q Wild Pedlar should have been informed of the process for escalating a matter. We apologise for this omission. Notwithstanding, the Assistant Ombudsman discussed the matter internally before proceeding with the recommendation. Response- The Assistant Ombudsman advised in the offices of the OSTI, that he would himself escalate the claim. This was never done. Why it is suggested that the matter should be escalated by the Insured and the process explained if the Assistant Ombudsman stated that he will escalate the matter? This led to further delays, no answering of emails and no return of calls. Only after reaching someone in Authority, did the Assistant Ombudsman start reacting to the complaints against him. Therefore, this delay appears to be deliberate, creating the impression of SANTAM having influence over the claim complaint. (Stated without prejudice as there is no factual basis in support of the above sentence.) This is not entirely agreed with. The Consumer indirectly may fund the OSTI/ NFOSA. The OSTI/ NFOSA cannot only be funded by complaints on claims. P a g e | 7 It is therefore that it makes logical sense, that the Insurer funds the OSTI, and that their funds are not directly acquired via COMPLAINTS ONLY. The above shows that there are 2 funding parties of the OSTI. They are the Insurer, who is the main funding party. The Insureds, only via complaints, raise funds by each complaint made against an Insurer. It is therefore a logical conclusion that the main source of income, is provided by the Insurers. It is therefore stated, that since SANTAM is the largest short-term insurer in South Africa, the majority of funds are paid by SANTAM. This then gives rise to fact, based on the “Balance of Probabilities” that SANTAM does have a say and influence over the OSTI. Although this has never been proven, this matter is an exception to the General Norm for the following reasons. 1) The Insured is an ex-employee of SANTAM. 2) The Insured is a “WHISTLE BLOWER”. 3) The Insured has worked for SANTAM from August 2008 until January 2021. 4) The Insured became a Manager at SANTAM. 5) The Insured blew the Whistle on wrong doing of Individuals at SANTAM. 6) The Individuals were the Managers that the Insured had to report to. 7) The Insured was subjected to an Orchastrated Dismissal due to preventing the ******* appointment of a current staff member at the time, into the Insureds ex- position as an Assessors Manager on 10 November 2021. 8) The position was manipulated by the interference of Waldi Els, Piet Nel and HR. 9) Due to the Insured’s Moral views of unfair labour practice, the Insured objected to such manipulation by emailing on 10 November 2021, such objection directly to Senior Managers, which included the CEO, Head of HR, Motor Claims Managers and the unfairly treated involved Assessors. 10) Prior to this, 3 other investigations were also raised within the structures of SANTAM. 11) The above culminated on 10 November 2021, as the “FINAL STRAW” for *******ed individuals with SANTAM, and eventually into an” Orchastrated Dismissal” which eventually ended in an agreement to take early retirement to save the reputation of the Insured on 20 January 2022. 12) SANTAM Individuals have also prevented the Insured of his Constitutional Right to earn an income by word of mouth between friends within the industry, to block any form of contracts, employment and as an external supplier, based on the “Balance of Probabilities”, with the probability weighing in favour of the Insured. P a g e | 8 The above is not all that has happened, and this will be dealt with in the Pretoria High Court, which is currently in the High Court of Pretoria under Case 010346/2022 and will most likely get to the Constitutional court, of which an application to the ConCort, has already been submitted. It is therefore stated on the Balance of Probabilities, that SANTAM is influencing the offices of the OSTI/ NFOSA, for yet further victimization against the Insured. This matter will be raised in the Pretoria High Court on Monday 22 July 2024, and at the Constitutional Court. 12. Save for the video recording with the service manager from Audi Menlyn, the information supp**** by the complainant, Mr Q Wild Pedlar and the participant were considered before the recommendation was made. The Assistant Ombudsman should, however, have addressed the submissions and arguments made by the complainant and Mr Q Wild Pedlar in the recommendation. Response-The Assistant Ombudsman is accused of deliberately delaying the matter before him, and is accused of biasedness, and not carrying out an independent approach to the Claim Complaint. The actions of a person holding the position as an Assistant of the Ombudsman, in the above statement of the OSTI/ NFOSA, is completely unprofessional, and lacks the seriousness of the fact that these submissions were not dealt with in the initial Provisional Finding, therefore wasting more time on what can only be considered as deliberate in delaying the matter even further. 13. With respect to the unanswered phone calls and emails, we extend a sincere apology on behalf of our organization. Response- This response was initially accepted, but now the apology is rejected as it is not sincere, in that calls and emails remain unanswered, messages are not returned, as is the case of emails. Further to state that the balance of this 2nd Provisional Report, is as biased as the first report. 14. We now turn to the merits of the complaint. Merits 15. The complainant approached this office for assistance because he was dissatisfied with the participant’s rejection of a claim for water damage to a 2008 AUDI A8 4.2 FSI QUATTRO TIP. The claim was rejected by the participant on the following grounds cited in the rejection letter dated 18 August 2023: 16. The background facts and circumstances of the loss are as follows. 17. Rainwater entered the vehicle from the sunroof that was left open overnight while the vehicle was parked outside. 18. The date of loss is estimated to be between: 18.1 July 2022 - October 2022 (refer to the Details of Complaint); 18.2 August 2022 – September 2022 (document received from Mr Q Wild Pedlar on 13 May 2024 labelled “Final Tech Report arrows added - sent to OSTI 13 May P a g e | 9 2024”, paragraph 1.2). 18.3 August and November 2022 (Email from the complainant to the broker dated 22 June 2023). 19. The loss was discovered the next morning. The vehicle was cleaned with towels and left open in the sun to dry for a few days. 20. A claim was not submitted to the participant because “No noticeable damage was inflicted on the vehicle, besides water on the carpets and dash and centre console. Towels were used to dry up the vehicle and it was left in the sun with the doors open, to dry the vehicle out. The vehicle was used with zero issues”. (document received from Mr Q Wild Pedlar on 5 February 2024 labelled “WAIDLER REPORT RESPONSE PDF DOC”, paragraph N). 21. There was no noticeable damage to the vehicle and there were no fault codes. The vehicle was used for some time after the event with no problems relating to the incident. (document received from Mr Q Wild Pedlar on 13 May 2024 labelled “Final Tech Report arrows added - sent to OSTI 13 May 2024”, paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3). 22. The vehicle was taken to a repairer for structural repairs to the left rear fender, tail lamp and rear bumper. This damage was related to a previous claim with another insurer. Pictures of the vehicle were sent to the complainant from the repairer on 22 September 2022. 23. The repairer told the complainant that the vehicle was “misting up”. 24. “The repairer was advised about the water entry into the vehicle from the sun roof, and was advised to open the doors, windows, and the sunroof, to allow the further drying out of the vehicle.” (document received from Mr Q Wild Pedlar on 5 February 2024 labelled “WAIDLER REPORT RESPONSE PDF DOC”, paragraph S). 25. “Prior to the collection of the car, the repairer had advised that the vehicle had an issue with starting, due to a flat battery.” (document received from Mr Q Wild Pedlar on 5 February 2024 labelled “WAIDLER REPORT RESPONSE PDF DOC”, paragraph T). 26. “On collection of the vehicle, it had to be jump started and the EPC light came on, on the instrument cluster. It was at this time that the Broker was informed of a possible problem and that a claim may need to be registered, but only dependent on if there were issues found due to the incident with the water.” (document received from Mr Q Wild Pedlar on 5 February 2024 labelled “WAIDLER REPORT RESPONSE PDF DOC”, paragraph U). Response- The above is true. It must however be noted that the struggle to start the vehicle was due to a faulty/ old battery. The vehicle battery needs to store a minimum of 13.5 volts battery power in order for the vehicle to start. The repairer resolved the issue by “jump starting” and eventually replaced the battery with a loan battery. 27. “Once the vehicle returned to Pretoria, a new Battery was fitted by my son who owns SJ Auto Electrical. At the same time the vehicle fault codes were deleted and the EPC light did not come on again. Causes of the EPC light coming on is on the following link. EPC Light: Meaning, Causes & Fixes (Volkswagen & Audi) (mechanicbase.com)” (document received from Mr Q Wild Pedlar on 5 February 2024 labelled “WAIDLER REPORT RESPONSE PDF DOC”, paragraph V). P a g e | 10 Response- No mention of the battery purchased on the same day that the vehicle was collected on 24 January 2023, being Invoice Number *** dated 24 January 2024 of which yourselves have a copy of. 28. “The vehicle showed no signs of any problems afterwards, and was used for about 1 -2 weeks with no issues, and the vehicle was then placed in Storage under cover and covered with a car cover.” (document received from Mr Q Wild Pedlar on 5 February 2024 labelled “WAIDLER REPORT RESPONSE PDF DOC”, paragraph W). 29. The vehicle was returned to the complainant from the repairer on 24 January 2023. (document received from Mr Q Wild Pedlar on 13 May 2024 labelled “Final Tech Report arrows added - sent to OSTI 13 May 2024”, paragraph 4.1). Response- The vehicle was not returned to the complainant. It was collected by the Insured being QJ Wild Pedlar. 30. An e-toll invoice and a picture of the vehicle travelling on the R21 on 24 January 2023 were submitted by Mr Q Wild Pedlar as proof that the vehicle was operating normally. 31. It was submitted further that “The car was driven from Endicott, approximately 100km from our residence at 116B Mustang Avenue, Pierre Van Ryneveldt without any issues, reaching speeds up to 180km an hour.” (document received from Mr Q Wild Pedlar on 5 February 2024 labelled “WAIDLER REPORT RESPONSE PDF DOC”, page 7, paragraph 10). Response- This was mentioned specifically for a reason due to the allegation by Nuraan Goudia of SANTAM as follows. The mentioning of the of what other issues did the vehicle have, are absurd, in that the e-toll invoice and picture is proof enough to show that the vehicle did not have any other hidden issues. The matters that I was busy with, that is mentioned above, was explained in detail to Mrs. Octavia Smith, the merit Assessor. It advised to her, that the taillights and the headlamps were removed to modify them to add LED lights and to darken the rear lamps. In order to do this, the front bumper and grille needs to be removed to gain access to the headlamps. The taillights are simply a few *****s to remove, as one would do when changing bulbs. All parts were available to view, yet Mrs. Octavia Smith and the Assessor declined to view the parts that was safely packed away on the premises where the vehicle was viewed. This has been mentioned many times, and again I state the above, and this includes the electronic units that were falsely claimed to be unavailable. I strictly take offence to such a fabrication of fact by SANTAM, which deliberately demonstrates their manipulation of fact in an attempt to uphold the rejection and go so far as to lie to the OSTI/ NFOSA. P a g e | 11 This alone shows SANTAMS manipulation and lies, proving their victimization of the “WHISTLE BLOWER”, being QJ Wild Pedlar. This is not a mere assumption that I make. It is a factual statement that will be used in the current High Court Matter, along with this very report/ document. 32. The date on which the vehicle was placed in storage and the date on which the vehicle was removed from storage have not been provided to our office. Response- This information has never been requested of me to supply to any person within SANTAM NOR THE OFFICES OF THE OSTI/ NFOSA. The vehicle was placed in storage approximately 1-2 weeks after the vehicle was driven back from the repairer on 24 January 2023, it was moved out of storage at the end of March 2023, when the claim was registered at the broker on 29 March 2023. The vehicle was in storage then for APPROXIMATELY 2 months. 33. After a while in storage, the vehicle was removed from the garage. “It was at that time that the vehicle would not start, and neither would the ignition lights come on, damages to the left front seat was noted to be serious. However, this was still not of concern to raise the bell of alarm for a claim, as it was only the leather of the seat that had been damaged.” (document received from Mr Q Wild Pedlar on 5 February 2024 labelled “WAIDLER REPORT RESPONSE PDF DOC”, paragraph Y). Response- This is true. Irrespective of my remark on not raising the alarm to register a claim, it was indeed registered at the Broker on 29 March 2023 as below. Take note of the below, as there are many fingers pointing at the Insured for not registering a claim, whilst this is totally false, and again a fabrication of facts by SANTAM, who received copies of the email sent to the Broker on 29 March 2023. Take further note that SANTAM has blocked any emails from ourselves since early 2022, due to the “whistle blowing” matter. Again, see below proof of registration as pointed out so many times before, and yet no mention of this is made other than to say it was just a notification of a possible claim. The Subject line and 2nd sentence, including the importance of the email speaks for itself, and I am at a loss at the denial that the claim was never registered, but was seen only a mere warning of a possible claim to the Broker. I cannot speculate why the notification to register a claim was never communicated to SANTAM. P a g e | 12 34. “The vehicle dashboard lights would come on, but the ignition lights would not come on when turning the starter to key from auxi****y to ignition and then to start position.” (document received from Mr Q Wild Pedlar on 13 May 2024 labelled “Final Tech Report arrows added - sent to OSTI 13 May 2024”, paragraph 4.4). 35. On 29 March 2023, an email was sent to the complainant’s broker from Mr Q Wild Pedlar. An extract of the email appears below: Response- Where is this extract BY YOURSELVES? I again refer to the extract above email that proves that a claim was registered at the Broker. It is unthinkable that the email is a “notification of a possible claim”. IT IS A FACTUAL INSTRUCTION TO THE BROKER TO REGISTER A CLAIM. I have repeated this many times, and I must also advise that when the Insured met with Mrs. Nadia Gamieldien in the offices of the OSTI/ NFOSA, Mrs. Nadia Gamieldien raised the question as to why the Broker had not informed SANTAM. I answered as a guess on the Brokers behalf, to state that sometimes it is possible to forget and register the claim, as seen many times in the past when employed at SANTAM. The continued notion throughout the reports and emails, referring to the email on 29 March 2023, to be noted as a possible claim is absurd at the least. There seems to be a lack of understanding, or worse, intentionally ignoring the fact that the email was a notification to register a claim. P a g e | 13 Therefore, I submit the entire email below, as it definitely has been a constant issue of this email that denies that a claim was registered on 29 March 2023. For once and for all time, someone with common sense should take the time to read the contents of the email marked ANX 4 as below and as attached. (Take note months is supposed to be days in above sentence) P a g e | 14 This is the entire email. It is once again attached to the email with this response marked ANX 1. P a g e | 15 It cannot be claimed yet again by the OSTI/ NFOSA, nor can it be denied again that the email is a notification of a possible claim. IT IS A NOTIFICATION TO REGISTER A CLAIM. 36. It was submitted that the email was preceded by a telephonic discussion with the complainant’s broker regarding the possibility of submitting a claim. Response- this is true; however, the claim was still registered at the Brokers office per the above email. 37. According to the complainant, the above is “fair notification of a possible claim, which was not confirmed to become a claim, as per the telephone call to the Broker…”. Response- I am not sure if I want to respond on this comment. However, I will comment again. The above has never been considered as “fair notification of a possible claim”. THIS IS A FABRICATION OF FACT. THE CALL TO THE BROKER WAS TO ADVISE OF A POSSIBLE CLAIM. THE EMAIL IS THE CLAIM REGISTRATION. It is notification of a claim, nothing more, and nothing less. This email followed after I had a verbal discussion with the Broker I sincerely hope that this matter can now be settled that a claim was registered at the Brokers on 29 March 2023 at 14:40. 38. The reasons submitted by the complainant for failing to report the claim as soon as possible and the failure to provide full details within 30 days of the event were: 38.1 There was no damage to the vehicle which was cleaned and left in the sun to dry. The complainant and Mr Q Wild Pedlar were not aware “that the water became trapped under the carpets and the passenger seat of the left side, and the carpets slightly on the right side.” Response- This is true. It was never considered as a claimable event/ incident, nor was it thought to become a claim at the time of the incident/ event. If the vehicle had any difficulties or problems that did show some electronic issues, then a claim would most certainly have been submitted at the time of the incident/ event or shortly thereafter. There were none of the above indications to suggest anything was amiss, and therefore a claim was not considered to be submitted. P a g e | 16 38.2 The complainant and Mr Q Pedlar were not “100% comfortable to claim from SANTAM, due to the ongoing matters between Mr. Quentin Wild Pedlar.” (Letter from the complainant dated 21 August 2023, paragraphs B – G). Response- I am not sure of this comment as there is no extract of this. However, I did state in the above IN THE email ON 29 MARCH 2023 the following. (REFER PAGE 14.) 39. “It was only when the extent of the damages was discovered, only then did we finally decide to register a claim as per the below email, dated 22 June 2023.” (Letter from the complainant dated 21 August 2023, paragraph I). Response- This is in reference to the earlier email sent on 29 March 2023. It is a repeat of what was already said in the email dated 29 March 2023, as it was then that I discovered that the claim had not yet been registered by the Broker. 40. The following is an extract from the email sent to the complainant’s broker on 22 June 2023: 41. A claim was submitted to the participant on 23 June 2023. A merits and quantum assessor conducted an assessment of the vehicle on 10 August 2023. (letter from participant dated 8 September 2023). Response- A claim was submitted to the Broker on 29 March 2023. This fact is already proven above. P a g e | 17 The fact that it had to be redone in June 2023, was because it was realised that the claim had not been registered as requested from the Broker to register a claim on 29 March 2023. There is no mention of the amount of days that it took SANTAM to view the vehicle after the claim was registered. From 23 June to 10 August 2023 is 49 days later. This is not acceptable service of SANTAM, and once again it is a delay strategy against QJ Wild Pedlar of victimization tactics for “whistle blowing”. Since your offices work on the balance of probabilities, it cannot be denied that SANTAM has shown a consistent pattern of delays AND FABRICATION. It is unfair and unprofessional to only act 49 days later to do an assessment. To state that this has no relevance to the claim, is absurd, whilst SANTAM rejects the claim for not notifying them in the 30 day period of their policy. By acting only 49 days later, is proof that SANTAM prejudiced themselves. More will be stated about this later in the document. 42. The participant made the following submissions to our office (letter from participant dated 8 September 2023): 42.1. The claim was not reported immediately when the loss occurred. It was submitted that “as an insurance professional Mr. Wild Pedlar ought to have known the immediate potential of extensive damages and for someone of his expertise, it is reasonable to expect him to notify the insurer as soon as possible for a proper assessment to be conducted and determine the extent of the damage. Further, we respectfully submit he ought to have known that water could cause damage to the wiring of the vehicle, as the wiring is directly under the seat where the water was found.” Response- This is an absurd and unacceptable statement. To compare myself from the Specialised division of Heavy Haulage claims, does not mean that I am an expert on cars, most especially a luxury vehicle such as an Audi A8. But their statement above only talks of wiring. Therefore, I state that since SANTAM only refers to the wiring in this statement, they also do not know of the electronic control units under the seats of the vehicle, WHICH IS THE EXACT SAME AS WHAT THE INSURED DID NOT KNOW. THERFEORE THERE CAN BE NO ACCEPTABLE EXPLAINATION FOR THE PARTICIPANT TO STATE THAT THE INSURED SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. P a g e | 18 This then begs the question of whether even a seasoned motor car assessor is aware of the control units under the carpets of the vehicle, never mind the fact that there are control units in the rear seat of the vehicle AS WELL. If it is the wiring that is being questioned, then remove the wiring from the quote. This is approximately R350 000-00. The control units that were damaged by water as confirmed by SANTAM themselves, Audi and Precision Labs, the cost of that is approximately R200 000-00 without labour and any extras. The value of the vehicle as already advised is R145 100-00. This still makes the vehicle uneconomical to repair, even if there is resultant damage. 42.2. The claim was not reported when the repairer notified Mr Q Wild Pedlar that the vehicle was struggling to start in September 2022. Response- That is correct, because the vehicle was being jump started whenever it needed to be moved. That was until the repairer put in one of his own batteries, and advised that I need to get a new battery when I collect the vehicle. Proof of the purchase of the battery has already been supp****, and was purchased on 24 January 2023, the same day the vehicle was collected. Again, is a copy of the invoice below. P a g e | 19 42.3 The broker was notified about the potential claim telephonically in February 2023 and by email on 29 March 2023. However, the claim was not reported to the participant until 23 June 2023. Response- Again we refer back to the email on 29 March 2023. The email to the Broker on 29 March 2023, is notification to register a claim at SANTAM. The fact it was again registered with the broker on 22 June 2023, has got nothing to do with the Complainant. It is the Complainant that became aware of the fact that the claim had not yet been registered at SANTAM, which is due to whatever communication error that the Broker had with SANTAM in failing to register the claim as requested on 29 March 2023. This point keeps on raising its ugly head throughout all correspondence, and it was mentioned in the reports sent to yourselves. This proves that despite all the effort I put forward to yourselves, appears not to have been read at all. I refer again to the report sent to yourselves as extract below, and supp**** on a memory stick to your offices and handed directly to Mrs. Nadia Gamieldien. The extract below is from the report as emailed, and again on the 2nd memory stick shown as On page 7 of 29 – lines 8 – 8.1 – 8.2 I am at a loss at the continual reminder of this matter to yourselves. Surely the reports have been read, or did I waste my time even writing the reports for a 2nd time, only for them to be ignored? 42.4. The participant submitted that the sequence of events underscores the prejudice arising from the complainant’s actions. Instead of immediately notifying the participant of the water damage, the insured attempted to address the matter on his own, only turning to the insurance claim process when alternative solutions became impractical. Response- This comment is an allegation obscured with assumption and fabrication. P a g e | 20 Yet again we return to the email of 29 March 2023. The claim was reported to the Broker. The Broker never registered the claim. The notion of assumption that the Complainant only claimed on 22 June 2023, is exactly what it is, just an assumption by the Participant, despite the fact that everybody has been advised about the email and provided with proof of such email on 29 March 2023, shortly after the damages were discovered. There is complete history of SANTAM Claims, of which examples can be easily provided, where Insured’s will proceed on repairs, before a claim is registered. This is a practice allowed by SANTAM, most especially in the Heavy Haulage Claims space and Agri and Yellow Machinery. It is not uncommon that Insureds proceed with repairs and do not even claim from SANTAM, until much later, when they realise, they forgot to lodge the claim. It is however a condition of SANTAM, that should the client proceed on repairs, photos must be taken and old parts be kept. For the Participant to make such a statement is completely a fabrication of what is allowed and what is not allowed, and again points to the fact of further victimization of the complainant by the Participant. Should any claims be required to prove this, I have records of all claims at SANTAM from the day I started at SANTAM in August 2008, thereby providing ample evidence of this practice. Please advise as I have approximately 17 years of claims that I personally carried out as a Specialist Assessor and Manager on record on my external hard drive. Example just for I month in 2010. P a g e | 21 42.5 The participant submitted further that weather reports were obtained for the period between August and September 2022 and there was no indication of adverse weather. Response- It is admitted that the exact date of loss is not known. But it is not common that events are recorded in detail to exact times and dates. Examples can be drawn again from Claims of SANTAM, most especially weather-related claims such as lightning damage on Agricultural Equipment. Many claims, of which there are examples of, shows that a Client will place in the date of loss on the same date of becoming aware of the loss. Lightning strike claims are also subjected to SA Weather Reports, that show that there was no lightning on the claimed date of loss.’ However, the Insured is reporting the claim only when he becomes aware of the claim and since equipment such as a Harvester operates seasonally, the lightning strike would occur during the rainy season when Harvesters are not used to harvest crops It is for this reason; Precision Laboratories are used to confirm lightning damage. This is Insurance in good faith. However, SANTAM also practices Insurance in bad faith. This is shown by the fact that if lightning damage to the above vehicles electronics is not found, but a power spike through the electrical system electronics is found, we were informed not to advise the client of the actual cause of loss, which is claimable under the policy Such claims as above occur normally during connecting batteries incorrectly, or incorrect jump starting of a vehicle. This is a claimable event, and by not advising the client fairly, is against TCF and the FSCA and is a prime example of “INSURANCE IN BAD FAITH”. 42.6 The participant submits that it had been prejudiced by the late notification, in that: 42.6.1 A date of loss could not be confirmed. Response- As already explained above, it cannot be possible for an insured to recall the exact date of an event, most especially when it is not an event where the Insured has no reason to claim. As an example, if every client must report an event such as hitting a pothole, but there is no noticeable damage, the Insurer will be inundated with claims on potholes alone. I already gave an example of this very such type of event that was ruled against OUTsurance by the Courts to settle a claim that only came to fruition much later, also on an Audi A8 Sport, that had latent suspension issues after hitting a pothole, P a g e | 22 which was not reported as an incident that may lead to a possible claim. More will be said in this later. 42.6.2 In the email to the broker on 29 March 2023, Mr. Wild Pedlar mentions that the damage was noticed ‘approximately 2 months ago’ and further mentions that there were still other matters he was busy with on the vehicle save for the water damages and the left rear fender and bumper that had been dealt with. It now raises the question as to what other issues did the vehicle have? Response- The above has already been commented on in the above paragraphs Paragraph 35 above sets the record straight that the damage was noted approximately 2 days ago. The other matters were to modify the taillights and the headlamps as already advised. This was continued with, until the vehicle could be sorted on the water issue. How can something else be assumed to be a problem on the vehicle. This is mere speculation and yet another poor excuse from SANTAM. The fact that the Assessors declined to view the parts removed on the exterior of the vehicle, is proof enough, that the claim was destined to be rejected because of whom the Insured was. Added to this, the electronic parts were supp**** to their own supplier that establishes failure cause in electronics. SANTAM was advised of this, and it was told to them that they must authorise the report to be written by their own expert, but it costs money to write these reports. The question begs to be answered as to why SANTAM did not ask Precision Labs to do a report on the electronics, since the parts were already at the CSIR? Instead SANTAM rejected the claim without doing the necessary checks and report at Precision Labs, and worst is after the claim was rejected, and the matter reported to your offices, SANTAM appoints the WAIDLER Group to do a desktop investigation. This is followed by their absolute and intentional lies to WAIDLER to fabricate that the parts at Precision Labs were not available. Is this mere coincidence, or is it direct fabrication to get a report to your offices that is completely false, and all the recommendations are ignored by SANTAM, by the very people that they appointed. Stating the above, the fact that the recommendations of the report are completely ignored is further proof of intentional rejection of the claim due to their continued victimization against a whistle blower. P a g e | 23 Below are the recommendations made within the report from the WAIDLER Group. Ignoring such critical recommendations to determine the correct outcome of the claim, even after rejection, is pure negligence of the responsibility SANTAM has to perform in order to reject the claim properly. Once again SANTAM has proven themselves that the time taken to view the vehicle 49 days after the 2nd registration of the claim, obtaining a report after the claim was sent to your offices, ignoring the recommendations of the report and ignoring their own supplier Precision Labs, is proof that SANTAM is hell bent on rejection of the claim. In fact, in my 2nd meeting with. Mr. Treasure Nhleko, he advised that he received an email from SANTAM stating that they would reconsider the claim if I handed the electronics to them, and I advised that the electronics were still at Precision Labs and they can go ahead and have Precision Labs do a report, since the parts are already there, or have them collected and sent to WAIDLER. Why was this ignored by Mr. Treasure Nhleko and where is a copy of this email? P a g e | 24 Further to the above, take note and please read the following link on South African Law. https://www.kebd.co.za/extent-of-the-duty-of-care-imposed-on-an-insured-andthe- obligations-for-the-insurer-arising-from-damage-caused-negligently-by-theinsured- in-south-africanlaw/#:~: text=The%20insurer%20will%20always%20bear,discussed%20in%20th e%20section%20above. Below is an extract of the article. 42.6.3 During the assessment process, discerning between pre-existing and recent damages posed a challenge, underscored by the observable presence of rust, wire corrosion, and discoloration on the air vents attributed to mould growth. The intermingling of these indicators made it difficult to definitively distinguish between historical and more recent sources of deterioration or impairment. Response- How can such a statement be made? This response is made due to the fact that no expert viewed the vehicle. The presence of corrosion/ rust is evident. Has it been determined what causes rust. This I dealt with in the technical report. I address what the cause of rust is again. I now address the cause of wire corrosion and results thereof. P a g e | 25 From the above, it is clear what causes rust and corrosion. From the picture below of the vehicle steering column, it is very clear the damage caused by water intrusion into the vehicle. This is in the technical report emailed to yourselves and on the 2nd memory stick given to yourselves. P a g e | 26 42.6.4. The vehicle's stripped condition further compounded this challenge, as it rendered the insurer unable to discern between pre-existing damage and damage that may have occurred subsequently. Response- This statement is completely false. The reason why it is false, is that it is standard practice to strip any vehicle that is in an accident or other loss, be stripped prior to Assessment of the vehicle, to determine the full extent of the damage. This is yet another poor excuse made by SANTAM to avoid settling the claim. The only time a vehicle is not stripped prior to Assessment, is only when the vehicle is damaged to such an extent by fire, flood, explosion etc. To use this excuse as reason for prejudice is a dismal failure of SANTAM against their own internal processes of determine the full damage to the vehicle. The only subsequent damage is mold, which can be cleaned off using mold remover and a cloth. There is no cost in removing the mold, and it has never been quoted for. Again, this is a deliberate attempt to reject the claim as stated before. P a g e | 27 42.6.5. The Quantum Assessor, Mr. Vorster, confirmed that consequential damages were caused which could have been prevented if the car was cleaned or dried properly. Consequential damage is used to describe the indirect and secondary losses that result from a specific event, action, or situation. These losses are not the immediate or direct consequences of the event itself, but rather the subsequent effects or related impacts that arise because of it. Consequential damages in this instance would be the corrosion of the wires, as well as the rust on the *****s and the deterioration of the seat. Response- The Quantum Assessor is purely there to provide a costing of the damage. Again, it is stated that resultant damage is the mold and the damage to the seat leather. It is also stated and shown that the control units damaged are not sealed. It is explained above again on rust and corrosion. Therefore, the Quantum Assessor is not an expert in this field, and SANTAM should have appointed an expert specialist Assessor to view the vehicle and not ignore the recommendations of the WAIDLER REPORT, which they clearly ignored, for obvious reasons. SANTAM had 49 days to appoint an expert. SANTAM had the opportunity to give instruction to Precision Labs to supply a full report on damage to the vehicle. SANTAM had the opportunity to request Conelec to Assess the water damage, and only the water damage, yet they chose not to do this. Supply the qualifications of Mr Vorster, so that we can see what his actual qualifications are to make such statements. Supply the report that should have been supp**** by Mr. Vorster in his Merits Report of the claim, as this is part of his job when appointed on a claim. If he confirms such, where is this in writing on his report at Policy Centre at SANTAM or on BPM on SANTAMS claim report system, where it is mandatory to complete the merit section of the claim. I will state there is no such report, and the risk of this in a legal dispute, will seriously compromise SANTAM and the NFOSA. Any changes made to such a report after this event and this response, will be evident on the SANTAM system. P a g e | 28 42.6.6. Mr. Vorster reports that the electrical components are sealed units and could surely not be damaged if not submerged. If this was the case wires shorting and all kinds of warning lights would have been visible. Further that “corrosion on plugs, wires and electrical components do not get damaged overnight and takes some time. Only when salt water and 12Volt gets mixed this is nearly instant and this is not the case.” Response- In all due respect to Mr. Vorster, he is not an expert in this field of making such comments. SANTAM failed to appoint an expert to view the vehicle. SANTAM failed on 2 other occasions to appoint WAIDLER to view the vehicle, and for Precision Labs to test the electronic components and view the vehicle. SANTAM has failed dismally in their actions that they should have appointed experts to view the vehicle. No expert to date has viewed this vehicle, which is critical to have done to determine the exact damages. By not doing so above, SANTAM has unfairly rejected the claim. Further to this, the Provisional Recommendation, holds no water to uphold a rejection of this claim. The lack of even mentioning the failure to appoint an Expert within the Provisional Recommendation, which SANTAM failed to do, makes the Provisional Recommendation void of fairness, and therefore fails on the validity of this Provisional Recommendation, bringing the NFOSA independence of influence and unbiased reporting into question. 42.6.7. The absence of a complete picture impedes our capacity to accurately quantify the claim. Given the passage of time, distinguishing between initially affected components and those that incurred damage over time becomes a formidable task. This material factor introduces complexities that hinder our ability to ascertain the full extent of the damages incurred. Response- This is statement is void of any credibility. The reason why they state the above, was because they never appointed an expert to view the vehicle. Neither is Mrs. Octavia Smith, nor is Mr. Vorster experts in this field. If the correct Experts were appointed, the above would have been easily determined. This is yet another poor excuse by SANTAM, when they had the ability to appoint Specialist Experts to view the vehicle, even though they were advised to do so by WAIDLER Group. P a g e | 29 46.2.8. Diagnostics could not be conducted to determine any errors on the vehicle and confirm water damages to the electronics and all-round water damages in the car. Response- This assertion has already been dealt with in the reports sent to yourselves. Yet again I have to repeat what I have already stated in previous reports. As per any qualified Auto Electrician, access to diagnostics of the vehicle is not capable of being carried out. There is a specific reason for this. If the vehicle ignition does not come on, it is impossible to carry out diagnostics report on the vehicle. I am unsure at the lack of addressing the factual basis of the points I have raised previously. Such lack of failure to consider these matters remains elusive in feedback reports. Again, I submit the following factual information. In the above, the last paragraph explicitly states that you must turn the car on. This means turn the key all the way to the ignition point, which is the point before you turn the key to start the vehicle position. If there are no ignition lights coming on, you cannot do a diagnostic check. No ignition lights, means no power supply to the on-board computer, which means no ability to do a diagnostic check. Please contact a qualified auto electrician to confirm this. In short, no power, no diagnostics. Next step, strip to see why there is no power supply to the ECU. https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-to-read-your-onboard-diagnostics P a g e | 30 The above is now exactly how a diagnostic test works. If you cannot establish a connection, the fault needs to be searched for, and how do you search for the fault without stripping the vehicle to see what is causing the fault? Is this prejudice to the Insurer? No, it is not. P a g e | 31 42.6.9. The absence/ removal of the Engine Control Unit (ECU) significantly hindered our assessment process, as this component contains crucial data essential for determining the precise cause of the damage. The unavailability of this data impeded our ability to conduct a comprehensive evaluation. The Engine Control Unit (ECU) possesses the capability to potentially pinpoint the date and time when damages began to manifest within its system. However, a thorough analysis of the intricate layers of data, which extends beyond the scope of a standard diagnostic scanner or the capabilities of an average technician, would necessitate the expertise of the Audi/VW SA Technical Division. For comprehensive data extraction and interpretation, Audi Technical in Uitenhage can be reached via their customer services. They possess the specialized knowledge and tools required to delve into the intricate layers of data within the ECU, shedding light on the precise timeline and nature of the damages that occurred. CRITICAL RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE STATEMENT. “The absence/ removal of the Engine Control Unit (ECU) significantly hindered our assessment process”. This is specific to note as a complete fabrication and false accusation of the ECU. In order to send the ECU to Audi/ VW, the unit must be removed. The entire vehicle cannot be taken to Uitenhage as it is not necessary. Only the ECU needs to be sent to VW/ Audi Technical Division. The use of the word “ABSENCE” of the ECU is an outright and deliberate fabrication of the truth. The ECU unit was already at SANTAMS own supplier, Precision Labs at the CSIR in Lynnwood Road Pretoria. On the day of the assessment on 10 August 2023, the Assessors were advised that the units were at Precision Labs, and that if they want the units, they can be collected at Precision Labs, or I can collect them and deliver them to SANTAM. This offer was declined by Mrs. Octavia Smith as being not necessary. To date, not one person has requested for me to supply the units to SANTAM. The only person that raised a question on the units was Mr. Treasure Nhleko, as per an apparent email per request of SANTAM to state if the units were handed over they will reconsider the rejection. I have never seen this email, as advised to Mr. Treasure Nhleko. However, I did advise Mr. Treasure Nhleko, that the units were still at Precision Labs, and if SANTAM wants the units, they are welcome to collect the units as requested. P a g e | 32 SANTAM arranges for units to be collected from clients, via Precision Labs, who will collect the units from a client, test them and return them to the client if required to do so. SANTAM bears the costs of the courier services charged by Precision Labs. Once again SANTAM has deliberately fabricated this entire statement and is misleading the NFOSA. Added to this, WAIDLER was also under some false impression that the units were not available. However, WAIDLER recommended a physical inspection of the vehicle, and it is then that the units would have been handed over to WAIDLER. By SANTAMS own doing and fabrication of events, it becomes clear evidence of misleading the NFOSA. Again, I accuse SANTAM of clear and deliberate acts of victimization and failure to act in accordance with the rules of the FSCA and the PDA. (Protected Disclosure Act) I have an obligation under the law to report the entire matter for investigation to the FSCA against all participants of this claim, and further to the DPCI (Commercial Crimes Unit) under the law of the Prevention and Combating of ******* Activities Act [No. 12 of 2004] https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/a12-04.pdf Since the law works with the “Balance of Probabilities”, SANTAM has created a scenario that has a pattern to confirm my accusation under the laws that govern RSA. 46.2.10. The loss had been exacerbated by delaying in reporting the claim. Had the claim been reported within the specified period, we would have been able to accurately validate the claim and also interview witnesses to verify the rainstorm/heavy downpour. Response- As already stated, no visible nor problematic damage was noted to require a claim to be registered on the incident. Since the Law has already made it clear that Insurance Companies do not define an incident, nor an event, in their policy wording, it is clearly a broad spectrum of any Insured to define in their own mind what is an Incident or an event that may lead to a claim. Refer again to the matter in the link below. https://www.santam.co.za/blog/intermediary-advice/ombudsman-case-study/ 46.2.11. The damage to the vehicle is extensive as the seat is in a total state of disrepair due to the time taken to report the claim.” Response- The claim was reported when the damage to the vehicle was noticed on 29 March 2023. It is understandable that damage to the leather of the seat is extensive whilst the vehicle was in storage and covered up. P a g e | 33 It is also understandable that the use of the word “2 months” should have been “2 days” confused matters further. However, the seat can be repaired or could have been replaced by the use of the donor vehicle that was sourced. Repairs to the seat is not a factor that is of concern, as this cost would have been covered by myself. The only matter that we as the Insured were concerned about, was to reach an amicable agreement with SANTAM on a settlement figure without writing the vehicle off. This fact has been brought to the attention of all concerned. With the donor vehicle that was sourced, it was completely feasible to repair the vehicle below the write-off value. Repairs had already begun, in an expectation that SANTAM would honour the claim on a negotiated basis to reach a settlement agreement. However, SANTAM decided to delay the claim, reject the claim, appoint a desktop assessment to WAIDLER Group after rejecting the claim and me reporting it to the OSTI/ NFOSA, ignore the recommendations of the WAIDLER Group, ignore the fact that all parts were available, and ignore the electronics that were awaiting their instruction to do a report in detail of the damage to the electronics and wiring. 42.7. In correspondence dated 9 October 2023, the participant also stated that “The client, Mr. Q Wild Pedlar decided to strip the internal structure of the vehicle inclusive of the seats, dashboard, etc which adds to the prejudice of Santam not being able to see in what condition was the interior with the water ingress. The client also thinks that the damage might render the vehicle uneconomical which would mean that had the claim being reported timeously to the insurer and honoured the claim, the insurer could have been able to salvage an almost complete vehicle with its interior intact. As per the clients service provider Mr. Peter Brandt, he opened the ECU to find water in the unit but did not do a report nor do we have photographs of that. The client also stated that when he took the vehicle for some repairs, it did struggled to start which was another indicator of something might be wrong with the car to then submit his claim late last year already. And for record if required by the Ombudsman, the Managers mentioned by the insured are not party to nor make decisions on claims in the Merits business unit.” Response- The above is complete fabrication. Only the front seats were removed to gain access into the foot wells. The dash was partially stripped of the cluster unit and the glove boxes to gain access to the electronics. There was no concern of the salvage as we did not want to write off the vehicle. The accusation against Mr. Peter Brand is completely false. Below is what Mr. Peter Brand stated. P a g e | 34 YET AGAIN SANTAM HAS PROVED THEIR INCONSISTENCY OF FACTUAL INFORMATION AND MISLEADING THE OFFICES OF THE OSTI/ NFOSA. THIS FURTHER SUPPORTS THE NOTION OF CONTINUED VICTIMIZATION BY MANAGERS WITHIN THE MOTOR CLAIMS DEPARTMENT AT SANTAM DUE TO WHISTLE BLOWING AGAINST THEM. THESE INDIVIDUALS WILL ONLY BE SATISFIED WHEN THEY COMPLETELY RUIN OUR LIVES FOR ME WHISTLE BLOWING, AND THE BOARD OF SANTAM IS ALLOWING THIS TO OCCUR, IF THEY ARE IN FACT AWARE OF THIS MATTER. THE PROOF THAT IS REQUIRED TO SHOW THE VINDICTIVENESS OF INDIVIDUALS IN SANTAM MANAGEMENT FOR WHISTLE BLOWING AGAINST THEM, IS VERY EVIDENT IN THIS CLAIM AS CONTINUED VICTIMIZATION OF CORPORATE BULLYING AGAINST WHISTLE BLOWERS. THESE ACTIONS ARE ******* AND WILL RESULT IN THE REPORTING OF THIS MATTER TO THE FSCA AND THE DPCI AND THE CURRENT LEGAL MATTER PLAYING OUT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PRETORIA. IT BECOMES VERY CONCERNING, THAT THE OFFICES OF NFOSA/ OSTI, APPEAR TO BE INFLUENCED BY SANTAM, IN THAT THE FEEDBACK LACKS FACTS, DELAYS AND OTHER, WHICH BRINGS THE NFOSA INTO THE EQUATION OF BEING NON-BIASED. P a g e | 35 43. On 9 October 2023, the participant submitted a report prepared by Waidler based on a desktop assessment. The report stated, amongst other things, the following: 44. The participant stated that “We include Waidler’s desktop input based on the photographs we have of the stripped interior. He mentions it would be possible to have a data download done, but due to so much stripping/removal of the components having occurred some of which are not present, the data might not be available. … Claims Management in the Merits division advise that we can accept Waidler’s recommendation, bearing in mind it is not a guarantee that with the available parts a conclusive outcome would be reached.” Response- The notion that parts are missing is again total fabrication of the facts. Every part, nut, bolt ***** etc is available, and has always been available. This is yet again another allegation by SANTAM that is based on complete unfounded assumptions. Again, SANTAM is accused of MISLEADING THE NFOSA/ OSTI. 45. The defence raised by the complainant and Mr Q Wild Pedlar is that: 45.1. The date on which the claim was reported was not material because the vehicle would have been rendered uneconomical to repair as a result of the water even of the claim was reported on the date of loss. 45.2 On 14 December 2023, MR Q Wild Pedlar stated the following: “The near end of the video is important and that also in the middle somewhere. It is important to note, that the vehicle would essentially be a write off, even after and within the 30 days after the loss, irrespective when the claim was registered. Specific note must be considered when Audi advises they will not guarantee and repaired parts, and they will place in all new parts including the wiring harnesses. This is only for what is under the carpets. P a g e | 36 This excludes the seats and any other place that got water on it that day. Therefore, there is no material connection between the date of registration of the claim and the 30 day time period to claim in the 30 day period. Therefore, the day the loss occurred, and the fact that no real damage was evident, and the fact that Audi states the car would have been a write off irre[spe]ctive. SANTAM officially writes off vehicles without thinking about it, when motor cars are damaged by water.” 45.3 Mr Q Wild Pedlar did not know that there was water trapped under the carpet and that the control unit was located in the footwell. Response- This is incorrect. There is not one control unit in the footwells. “The control unit”. There are various units under the carpets in the footwells, and this includes the Kessy system which is the Ghost System that sends a wireless signal to the vehicle key start system. See the following link: https://www.google.com/search?q=audi+a8+kessy+module+baked&rlz=1C1CHBF_enZA987ZA9 87&oq=audi+a8+kessy+module+baked&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCA IQIRigAdIBCTIwNjkzajBqNKgCALACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF- 8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:f0f3602f,vid:hS2-5xMcOPQ,st:0 Extract of the article is as follows as the heading of the link. If you watch the video in the link above, you will see that the unit is not a sealed unit, and neither are the others. It is strongly suggested to watch the video. The only sealed control units are those that are subjected to harsh environments on the external fitted units of the vehicle. The balance of the units are the same, and all of them would have been subjected to the same damage that you will see in the video. These units that have become wet, can work for a while still after becoming wet. Yet again to be explained is what AUDI states. P a g e | 37 If the units are subjected to water, they cannot be repaired, they must be replaced. The cost of these units is at R200 000-00 approximately as previously supp**** to yourselves. Yet it remains factual that these reports are not read, or are not understood. This will remain as such, because SANTAM did not appoint a Specialist to view the vehicle, despite the fact that it was recommended to do so. By ignoring the WAIDLER recommendations, SANTAM has completely failed in its responsibility to adhere to the recommendations, making their case for rejection a complete “CIRCUS SHOW AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, SANTAM IS MAKING NFOSA BEING THE CLOWN OF THE SHOW” BY THEIR FABRICATION OF ACTUAL FACTS. 45.4 Mr Q Wild Pedlar did research online and followed the recommendations made on an online Audi forum. The vehicle was dried, was operating normally, there were no fault codes and there was no damage to claim for. 45.5 The participant’s handling of the claim is evidence of the participant’s bias against Mr Q Wild Pedlar, and the continued victimisation Mr Q Wild Pedlar because he was a whistleblower while he worked for the participant, in that: P a g e | 38 Response- No comments required, the above is correct. P a g e | 39 Findings Response- There is great concern of the ability of NFOSA/ OSTI that is on the balance of probabilities, based on delays, not answering emails, returning calls, leaving out critical information, failure to order SANTAM to appoint a specialist, such as Precision Labs, to view the vehicle, and making irrational decisions based on fabrication of events by SANTAM, that also creates the impression that SANTAM has influence of the offices of the NFOSA/ OSTI. Response- At this stage of matters concerning this claim, fairness and equity cannot be considered as the report is based on the following: a) Failure to note that SANTAM agrees there is water damage. b) No claim is made against any damage the does not fall within the scope of the water damage only. c) Water damage is all that is being claimed for on electronics and possibly the wiring harness. d) There is no request to write the vehicle off. e) There was a donor vehicle to repair this vehicle within the space of the write off value. f) The donor vehicle may be lost due to the delays created by SANTAM. g) The first time the claim was registered, is with the Broker on 29 March 2023, approximately 2 days after the damage was noticed. (Note error on email as informed). h) Allegations that the claim was only registered on 22 June 2023 are false in respect of the complainant. Proof of this has been supp****. i) The Participant failed to Assess the vehicle within the SLA for Assessment of vehicle within SANTAMS Internal Policies. j) SANTAM has deliberately stalled the claim by only Assessing the vehicle on 10 August 2023. k) The lack of response to the complaint itself, has also been delayed for months by the NFOSA/ OSTI. (This can be proven.) l) The Complainant is of the opinion that SANTAM has influence over the NFOSA/ OSTI. m) The Complainant is an Ex-Employee of SANTAM, and was a senior member of the Heavy Haulage Claims Committee. n) SANTAM is accused of rejecting the claim due to Victimization for whistle blowing, which caused the Complainant becoming a target for dismissal after 10 November 2021. P a g e | 40 o) SANTAM has failed to follow on the recommendations of their so-called Specialists, being the WAIDLER Group. p) No Specialist has viewed the vehicle. q) The Participant has blatantly fabricated allegations against the Complainant. r) The Participant falsely advises that there are parts not available to inspects, whilst all parts were available at their own supplier and at the residence of the Complainant. s) The Participant assumes that the Complainant should have registered a claim within the 30 day period stipulated in the policy, to report an event or incident that may lead to a claim, whilst there is no definition of what is an “incident” and what is an “event”. t) There is also no definition of what Prejudice is in the policy wording. u) The Complainant has been cooperative with the Participant and the NFOSA/ OSTI at all times. v) The use of a donor vehicle has never been considered by the Participant. w) The Participant has never requested for the parts to be supp**** to them, despite the fact that they knew the parts were at Precision Labs, at the CSIR in Pretoria, being a supplier of the Participant that analysis cause of failure on electronics. x) The Participant falsely accuses the Complainant of prejudicing the claim in that the vehicle had been stripped at the time of assessment and that this compromised the claim causing prejudice to the Participant, whilst it is common knowledge that vehicles that are considered to be repairable, are instructed by Assessors of the Participant to strip the vehicle to determine all damages. y) The Participant is of the belief that a diagnostic check could have been done prior to stripping the vehicle, whilst it is common knowledge that diagnostics cannot be carried out whilst power to the ignition point on the vehicle key barrel, just before the start point of the key barrel, does not power up. Diagnostics can only be done when the entire system is powered up, and if this cannot be achieved, the fault causing failure to power up the entire system has to be sought. In order to do this, the vehicle needs to be stripped to gain access to the electronics, wiring, fuse boxes and relays. z) NFOSA/ OSTI has accepted that the rejection is just, whilst the actions and opportunities of the Participant is based on fabrication, failure to appoint a Specialist Assessor, and ignoring the recommendations of their own Specialists to view the vehicle, that were appointed long after the claim was rejected and reported to NFOSA. A note that is important and critical, is that SANTAM agrees that there is water damage to the vehicle, but that they were prejudiced in that the vehicle was stripped and they could not tell the difference in water damage, old damage, rust and corrosion caused by the delay of reporting the claim, which was done on 29 March 2023, and again on 22 June 2023, and then prejudiced the claim itself by them only viewing the vehicle 49 days after the claim was registered a 2nd time, stating that any damage that is resultant, is strictly the fault of the Complainant for not registering a claim after the event/ Incident within the 30 day period. The Complainant has been prejudiced by the Participant in their late response to assess the vehicle to prevent further damage, whilst holding the Complainant responsible for resultant damage by not reporting the claim within the 30 day period of the policy. This is a complete contradiction of their own reasons for prejudice, whilst they themselves prejudiced the claim and the rights of the Complainant by their own doing. P a g e | 41 Response- The Complainant was not of the view that an event or incident should have been reported, and the Complainant cleaned the vehicle and dried it out, and let it stand in the sun, before using the vehicle, or attempting to start the vehicle. The Complainant had no idea that water would have collected in the footwells under the carpets as there should be drain holes to take out any water, of which there are none, that may collect in the footwells. The Participant is of the view, that the Complainant as a Specialist vehicle Assessor at SANTAM Heavy Haulage, should have known better by not reporting the incident/ event, thereby causing prejudice to the Participant. As stated already, there is no definition of an incident, or event in the policy, that fully describes what should be reported on, when the event/ incident may lead to a claim. Response- As explained above, what is defined as an event or incident within the policy wording. There is no definitions to outline to what extent is common cause to raise a possible claim due to an event/ incident. Refer again to the following link. https://www.santam.co.za/blog/intermediary-advice/ombudsman-case-study/ This is an assumption that reporting the claim to the Broker, is not considered as reporting the claim to the Participant. Refer to following link. https://www.santam.co.za/blog/intermediary-advice/the-vital-role-intermediaries-play-in-deliveringinsurance- good-and-proper/ P a g e | 42 The extract below refers to Intermediaries, clearly stating that they are in partnership with SANTAM. This means that the Broker has a responsibility to report a claim when it is informed of a claim, or possible claim, to the Insurer, being in this case, the Participant. This was standard practice at SANTAM, that SANTAM cannot punish Brokers due to an error made by a Broker, that may prejudice the client/ Insured. Therefore, the above statement by the NFOSA/ OSTI cannot hold water, in that the responsibility lies on the Broker to inform Insurers of change of risk, claims, new additions to the policy and many more. This excuse of the NFOSA/ OSTI is completely incorrect, non-factual and therefore it is void of even being of any relevance to the response as set out in this document of the NFOSA/ OSTI, and should be discarded as false information, or better, trash. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS BLOCKED FROM DIRECTLY CONTACTING THE PARTICIPANT DUE TO THE CURRENT LEGAL ACTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF PRETORIA AND WHISTLE BLOWING. Response- The claims procedure terminology is very wide in its statement as below, being that neither an event nor incidents is defined in the policy, which creates a broad spectrum of what should be reported, and what not. P a g e | 43 P a g e | 44 Again, refer to the following link, which is on the SANTAM Blog (Participant.) https://www.santam.co.za/blog/intermediary-advice/ombudsman-case-study/ Extract below. It therefore remains that the link of the Courts decision on the definitions of event and incident remains in force, as the Complainant did not view the matter as an event/ incident that may give rise to a claim. Response- This statement is already counteracted in the above response paragraph 51. Response- The onus does not fall under the Complainants duty to bring his claim within the ambit of the policy by demonstrating that an Insured peril occurred. P a g e | 45 Refer to below link. https://www.kebd.co.za/extent-of-the-duty-of-care-imposed-on-an-insured-and-the-obligations-forthe- insurer-arising-from-damage-caused-negligently-by-the-insured-in-south-african-law/ Extract as follows: P a g e | 46 Response- This is partially false or misleading as information in the video is only selectively mentioned in the report, but it appears to be that critical advice by AUDI is not mentioned in this feedback, which is critical to the outcome of the claim itself. AUDI and Precision Labs both confirmed water damage, as did SANTAM themselves. The recording explains that the seats and carpets would be removed to determine the extent of damage. It also states that if the control units were subjected to water, they must be replaced. AUDI also states in the video that an option to try and repair/ clean the units is not an option if the units were subjected to water. Added to this, Audi also states that not only must the units be replaced, but also the wiring harness needs to be replaced. The reason for this is that opting to clean WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY WARRANTY by AUDI that the vehicle will be reliable in the future, and they advise all clients in an event such as this, all units and wiring harnesses must be replaced and that without doing that, they will not warrant any repairs. They do state that replacement of the wiring harness it is dependent on how long the wiring harness has been exposed to water, HOWEVER THE DISCUSSION CONTINUES TO STATE THAT THEY ADVISE CLIENTS THAT THE HARNESS MUST BE CHANGED, AS THEY CANNOT WARRANT THAT THE HARNESS WILL NOT CREATE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE. P a g e | 47 Response- It is true that I stated that the water damage was minimal, but that is only an assumption by the Complainant. The carpets are raised above the footwells, and are very thick due to the foam material that is moulded with the shape of the carpets for sound proofing. (Approximately 30-40mm thickness.) The extent of water present in the vehicle did appear to be minimal. However, unbeknown to the Complainant, the water drained past the carpets into the footwells below, that have no water drain plugs to drain any water that may accumulate in the footwell, and this was also unbeknown to the Complainant, that the footwells contained control units. Due to the water draining into the footwells below the carpets, cannot possibly be common knowledge to the Complainant, as he has no knowledge of what is below the carpets, and that there are no drain holes in the footwells to drain any water that enters the footwells. The argument of the suggestion that the date of reporting the claim is relevant to materiality is absurd in the least. It cannot be assumed that the Complainant knew that there was water that had collected in the footwells, that there were no drain holes, and that there were control units under the carpets. The Participant cannot prove that the Complainant was aware of the above, and it therefore renders this statement as mere speculation. Determination of whether a claim is valid or not, cannot be based on speculation by the Insurer, nor the writer of this report, which is clearly exemplified above and in the below. Response- The above again is mere speculation. P a g e | 48 The fact remains that the Complainant did everything to show that the rejection is incorrect and that there was water damage to the items, irrespective of the extent of the damage to the units, and that it is proven that there is water damage, by AUDI, Precision Labs and SANTAM themselves. The extent of the damage is not relevant, and this is confirmed by AUDI that irrespective of the extent of damage, that the units were subjected to water damage, and that the units need to be replaced, as does the wiring harness. It is factual that water did cause damage to the vehicle, but the notion that is being put forward in this report, is the prejudice of the Participant. How can the Participant be prejudiced in the face of definite water damage, at own admission, and the fact that AUDI and Precision Labs confirmed that the units were subjected to water. The units alone need to be replaced, irrespective of the extent of the damage, and the cost thereof exceeds the economical repair value of the vehicle, just on part prices alone. Response- The issues above do not require the addressing the issues raised above. Neither of the entities confirming the fact that the parts were subjected to water, need to comment on any issue above, because they have never been requested to address the issues above. The Participant had all the opportunity to verify any issue by appointing a Specialist Assessor, Precision Labs, WAIDLER, and AUDI to confirm any issues raised above. At every opportunity the Participant was given to exercise their right to address the issues above, they failed to do so. To date, not even the office of the NFOSA/ OSTI, have requested the Participant to appoint WAIDLER, AUDI, Precision Labs or other to do a physical inspection, thereby compromising the rejection itself, and in doing so, are upholding the rejection in favour of the Participant, whilst the Participant has completely failed to prove anything by neglecting the appointment of Specialists. The above fact brings the ability of the NFOSA/ OSTI into question on their own statements at the beginning of this report findings. The NFOSA/ OSTI, has created a quagmire of reality in the absence of lack of fairness, Law, unbiasedness and other, thereby creating a dilemma of violating their own policies to obtain a fair outcome and equitable outcome. The Participant has supp**** zero in support of their allegations, and proper cause for rejection, whilst the Complainant has spent much time to provide more than enough reports that the Participant have completely failed to do, despite the opportunities they had to do so. P a g e | 49 Response- This statement is complete nonsense, and is yet another poor excuse to try and justify an unjustified rejection of the claim. It is definitely possible to ascertain the damage caused by the incident, and separate that from any resultant damage due to a late notification as claimed to be the reason of rejection. This Provisional Recommendation is completely ignoring the responsibilities of the Participant, and makes excuses for the participant, thereby raising red flags to the view of any normal person, to a be very biased Provisional Recommendation, report/ feedback. Response- As already advised above, a diagnostic test had been attempted, but could not be carried out to the fact that the entire system would not power up with the vehicle key being in the “ON/ IGNITION” position. Refer to paragraph 46.2.8. Response- This statement is entirely of no value whatsoever. The Complainant advised that the vehicle would be reassembled, should the Participant write off the vehicle. The notion that the value of the salvage would be affected, is totally a fabrication of the facts. It was advised, and again in this report being advised, that the Complainant does not want the vehicle to be written off, and as already stated the vehicle had, and may still have the ability to be repaired within the costs of the writeoff amount. For whatever reason there may be, the NFOSA/ OSTI appears to not present all the facts in their Provisional Recommendation, and the exclusion of all the facts by selection of specific points raised by the Participant only, and barely covers any of the reports provided to the NFOSA/ OSTI. The Complainant has always been willing to reach a settlement agreement without writing the vehicle off. This fact has been repeated over and over again, yet in this report, there is “ZERO MENTION” of these facts, amongst other. P a g e | 50 Response- The above statement is an attempt to use my history as a person in the Employ of SANTAM, to have the knowledge to have registered a claim or notify the Participant of an event/ incident that is not even defined in their own policy wording, as to exactly what the boundaries are to notify an event/ incident, that may give rise to a claim. The mere fact that this is even mentioned by the NFOSA/ OSTI and SANTAM, has zero relevance, and is a slap in the face of the Complainant. If the Participant is so engrossed with the knowledge that the Complainant has, to even bring this statement to the forefront of the arguments of this matter, including the NFOSA/ OSTI, then it is reasonable and feasible to request that this must be explained to the Complainant as to why the Complainant no longer is employed at the Participant, due to orchestrated dismissal. From this alone, it is clear that the Participant has no trust in the Complainant on any level, from knowledge, decisions, Specialist Assessor, 2 IC of Heavy Haulage Claims, Assessors Manager, Moderator and most importantly, A WHISTLE BLOWER. I STRONGLY ADVISE THAT THIS IS A VERY SORE POINT BETWEEN THE COMPLAINANT AND THE PARTICIPANT, AND IT SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A TOOL TO JUSTIFY A REJECTION AT ALL, MOST ESPECIALLY WHILST THE PARTICIPANT HAS DISREGARDED ANY TRUST THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAD IN THE PARTICIPANT, BY WHISTLE BLOWING, AND BEING FORCED TO LEAVE THE EMPLOY OF THE PARTICIPANT FOR DOING SO, AND THE CURRENT LEGAL MATTERS THAT ARE PLAYING OUT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PRETORIA. CAREFUL NOTE MUST BE TAKEN WITH WHAT I STATE ABOVE, AS IT IS VERY OBVIOUS THAT THE PARTICIPANT IS ATTEMPTING TO USE THIS AS LEVERAGE AT THE NFOSA/ OSTI, TO JUSTIFY THEIR REASON FOR REJECTION, WHICH IS NOTHING LESS THAN PURE VICTIMIZATION OF A WHISTLE BLOWER. THE MERE FACT THAT THE NFOSA/ OSTI DOES NOT WANT TO COMMENT ON MATTERS THAT ARE NOT OF CONCERN TO THIS COMPLAINT WITH REGARDS TO VICTIMIZATION, EQUALLY SO, SHOULD THE NFOSA/ OSTI TAKE THE SAME STANCE WITH THE PARTICIPANT, AS NEITHER OF THE ISSUES OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMPLAINANT AND THE ACCUSATION OF VICTIMIZATION FALL WITHIN THE MANDATE OF THE NFOSA/ OSTI TO COMMENT ABOUT. I REMIND THE NFOSA/ OSTI, THAT AT YOUR OWN STATEMENTS OF NOT COMMENTING ON COMPLAINANTS’ ACCUSATIONS OF FURTHER VICTIMIZATION WILL NOT BE COMMENTED ON, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE NFOSA/ OSTI SHOULD NOT BE COMMENTING ON MY KNOWLEDGE, AS THEY HAVE NO IDEA OF MY KNOWLEDGE, AND TO TAKE THE SIDE OF THE PARTICIPANT BY MENTIONING IN A LEGAL DOCUMENT, THAT THE COMPLAINANT SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER, IS A DIRECT INDICATION THAT THE NFOSA/ OSTI IS INFLUENCED BY P a g e | 51 THE PARTICIPANT, AND THE DIRENT WORDS OF THE PARTICIPANTS IS BEING USED AS JUSTIFICATION TO UPHOLD WHAT IS CONSIDERED A BASELESS REJECTION. I WILL TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ADVISE THE WRITER OF THIS PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATION, TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS OF MAKING OR USING THIS AS AN EXCUSE IN THE FINDINGS, AS IT MAY CAUSE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BOTH THE PARTICIPANT AND THE NFOSA/ OSTI, TO PROVE THE BIASED NATURE OF THE CORE OF THE PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATION ITSELF. I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT THE NFOSA/ OSTI DISTANCES THEMSELVES FROM ANY INFLUENCE OF EITHER PARTY, AND SEEK THE FAIR OUTCOME OF THIS CLAIM COMPLAINT, AS EVERYTHING AT THIS POINT IS BUSY WITH THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES, THAT THE NFOSA/ OSTI IS BIASED, AND ARE INFLUENCED BY THE PARTICIPANT. I ASSURE BOTH OFFICES OF NFOSA/ OSTI AND THE PARTICIPANT, THAT THIS MATTER WILL BE REPORTED TO THE FSCA AND WILL BE USED IN THE HIGH COURT OF PRETORIA AS FURTHER EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PARTICIPANT. THE CHOICE OF WHETHER THIS IS WHAT BOTH PARTIES, BEING THE NFOSA/ OSTI AND THE PARTICIPANT WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN ON THE LEGAL MATTERS ALREADY PLAYING OUT, IS ENTIRELY THE CHOICE OF YOURSELVES, AND MAY SUBJECT ALL TO SOCIAL MEDIA. DO NOT TAKE THIS AS A THREAT TO ALTER THE OUTCOME OF THIS COMPLAINT IN FAVOUR OF EITHER PARTY, BUT IN REALITY, CAUTION MUST BE TAKEN BY THE NFOSA/ OSTI., AS I AM ALREADY OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS MORE GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES OF SMOKE AND MIRRORS. P a g e | 52 TAKE NOTE OF THE DETAILED RESPONSE OF THIS COMMENT. POINT 62 THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO READ AND I REMIND OF MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS REFERRING TO RESPONSE OF POINT RESPONSEI. THIS IS AN EMAIL THAT I SENT TO MANY, INCLUDING THE OSTI AT THE TIME, NOW NFOSA. II. THE EMAIL WAS SENT ON 21 SEPTEMBER 2023. III. THE SECTION OF THE EMAIL PORTARYED ABOVE AND ITS COMMENTS HAVE BEEN SELECTIVELY USED AGAINST THE COMPLAINANT. IV. THE SPECIFIC EMAIL HAS MUCH MORE TO IT, OTHER THAN THE SELECTED PIECE SHOWN. V. I NOW STATE THAT THIS CLAIM RECOMMENDATION IS BIASED IN FAVOUR OF SANTAM BY THE NFOSA. VI. I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR A WHILE TO SEE WHERE SOMEBODY WILL MAKE THE MISTAKE TO CONFIRM MY SUSPICIONS ON BIASED REPORTINGAND THAT THERE IS AN INFLUENCE BY SANTAM AND THAT IT IS DELAYING AND EFFECTING THE OUTCOME OF THIS CLAIM COMPLAINT. VII. THE CAREFULLY SELECTED SECTION OF THE EMAIL IS PROOF THAT ONLY THAT SECTION OF THE EMAIL IS BEING USED AS A REASON TO UPHOLD A REJECTION BY SANTAM. VIII. HOWEVER, I HAVE A FULL COPY OF THIS EMAIL WHICH I WILL DISPLAY. IX. THE EMAIL CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT WAS SEARCHED AT THE TIME WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED AND THAT ARE THE LOWER SCREEN SNIPS. X. THE TOP SNIPPET, IS THE ONE THAT COMES AFTER THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT START, AND WAS RESEARCHED IN THE PERIOD OF MARCH 2023, HENCE THE CLAIM BEEN REGISTERED ON 29 MARCH 2023, WHICH IS THE EXACT REASON WHY I REGISTERED THE CLAIM, AS IT WAS ONLY THEN AFTER THE CAR WOULDN’T START. XI. THEREFORE, IT IS A WILD ASSUMPTION TO STATE THAT I WAS AWARE OF THE ELECTRONICS. XII. THIS THIS POINT GIVEN BY YOURSELVES, FAILS HOPELESSLY IN WHAT YOU STATE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE REPORT ON FAIRNESS AND EQUITY AND HAS A RESPONSE BELOW THE EMAIL ITSELF. XIII. THE EMAIL IN QUESTION IS AS FOLLOWS. ZOOM INTO THE EMAIL SNIPS. P a g e | 53 P a g e | 54 P a g e | 55 P a g e | 56 P a g e | 57 Response- 1) This entire email was sent to the NFOSA/ OSTI. 2) I am unsure if yourselves used response from SANTAM, or if yourselves selected information out of the email under question above. 3) This email should have been checked in full, and I want to be notified if it is a selection of SANTAM only, or if yourselves selected it. 4) This point is enough for me to confirm that the report I have sent have not been read. P a g e | 58 5) The response to the point raised in this paragraph 62, is valid, and proves complicity to conspire to actually commit *****, and if yourselves did not check this without getting the entire email, places yourselves in the firing line. 6) Since this is proof I have been looking for, to show SANTAMS influence on this claim, and SANTAM’S attempt of victimization and unfair rejection, requires of myself to report this to the DPCI under the Prevention and Combating of ******* Activities Act, 2003. 7) Any amount over R100 000-00 has to be reported. 8) I will use this document in the High Court of Pretoria to show the continued Victimization of the Complainant by SANTAM. 9) It however it appears that your offices are in support of SANTAMS activities, and places the NFOSA in a very precarious situation that is potentially damaging to your statements of “fairness and equity”. 10) It is also in the interests of the public to be made aware of this, as SANTAM is an accredited financial service provider, and your offices is there to deal with complaints in terms of equity and fairness, which unfortunately falls short of both fairness and equity. Response- refer to points 62, and 63. Again, I suggest this clears this matter up now and the report if fully corrected. I trust that this clears up points 62, 63 and 64. Response- refer to points 62, and 63 and 64. I disagree with this completely. P a g e | 59 The fact that I may not be fami**** with the layout of the vehicle, does not prompt any reasonable person to register a claim at the time of the event. The event/ incident did not in any way suggest that a claim needed to be lodged as the water was cleaned up as per point 63 above. Further to the above, refer to point 55 response as below. Response- It is true that I stated that the water damage was minimal, but that is only an assumption by the Complainant. The carpets are raised above the footwells, and are very thick due to the foam material that is moulded with the shape of the carpets for sound proofing. (Approximately 30-40mm thickness.) The extent of water present in the vehicle did appear to be minimal. However, unbeknown to the Complainant, the water drained past the carpets into the footwells below, that have no water drain plugs to drain any water that may accumulate in the footwell, and this was also unbeknown to the Complainant, that the footwells contained control units. Due to the water draining into the footwells below the carpets, cannot possibly be common knowledge to the Complainant, as he has no knowledge of what is below the carpets, and that there are no drain holes in the footwells to drain any water that enters the footwells. The argument of the suggestion that the date of reporting the claim is relevant to materiality is absurd in the least. It cannot be assumed that the Complainant knew that there was water that had collected in the footwells, that there were no drain holes, and that there were control units under the carpets. The Participant cannot prove that the Complainant was aware of the above, and it therefore renders this statement as mere speculation. Determination of whether a claim is valid or not, cannot be based on speculation by the Insurer, nor the writer of this report, which is clearly exemplified above and in the below. Response- This was true, and it was tried after the discovery that the vehicle would not start. This is in the period of approximately the 2 days prior to 29 March 2023, when the claim was registered. Don’t forget that the original registration of the claim states 2 months ago, and is corrected to “app 2 days ago”. P a g e | 60 However, once the extent of damage after stripping and fault finding, the claim was lodged on 29 March 2023. Therefore, the above statement is not relevant, as the vehicle was stripped to determine the reason why the vehicle would not power up on the diagnostics to read fault codes. Response- I totally disagree with this statement. The WAIDLER report, is based on a desktop assessment. It cannot be ignored because the crucial part of the report is as below. 68.1 It is not possible to disregard the WAIDLER Report. 68.2 It cannot be that the recommendations of the report were not acted upon. 68.3 The recommendations is crucial to the outcome of the claim. 68.4 To ignore the contents of the report, is tantamount to unfair treatment of the Insured. 68.4.1 Failure by SANTAM to give instruction to WAIDLER to follow their recommendations of viewing the vehicle to confirm what they are not sure of, should have been a clear indication to SANTAM to view the vehicle as they admit that they cannot make conclusive findings, without viewing the vehicle. P a g e | 61 68.4.2 The above has compromised the rights of the Complainant by ignoring the recommendations to SANTAM by WAIDLER. 68.4.3 To disregard the WAIDLER Report, is prejudice to the points raised by the Complainant as to why the Participant did not follow the recommendations of the WAIDLER Report. 68.5. It is therefore conclusive that SANTAM failed to do what they were supposed to do in the first place at the very beginning of the claim, despite the fact that the report wascreated after I complained to yourselves. 68.6. The failure of the NFOSA/ OST to direct and instruct the participant to appoint the WAIDLER Group to do as recommended by them, is also an injustice of the offices of the NFOSA/ OSTI. 68.7. The claim is now nearly one year down the line, and any ability now follow through on the recommendation’s is now fruitless as the parts and the vehicle has been standing for months, when the instruction could have been given when the report was supp**** to your offices after the Complainant approached your offices. 68.8. Any decision to void the WAIDLER Report has seriously COMPROMISED THE COMPLAINANT. Response- The Complainant disagrees with this statement. THE PARTICIPANT did not Act within 49 days. The relevance of this cannot be discounted for reasons that: 69.1. 49 days is further deterioration of the vehicle. 69.2. The 49 days failure to respond, is not how SANTAM operates. 69.3. The standard S.O.P for an Assessment is to be contacted within 8 working hours of the date of appointment. 69.4. The Participant has been accused of delaying the claim due to further Victimization. 69.5. Ignoring the significance of the finding, and that is unclear, once again is prejudice against the Complainant. P a g e | 62 It is not possible to be unclear on the significance of this point. It sets a standard of procedure that the Participant is hell bent on for rejecting the claim. It proves their continued efforts of Victimization, and this is legally proof thereof. Where are the Participants reasons for not assessing the vehicle within 5 days of reporting the claim for a 2nd time. It has never been addressed by the offices of the NFOSA/ OSTI. This gives rise to the point raised of the TANTAMOUNT EXISTENCE OF BEEN BIASED AND UNFAIR, therebye compromising the office of the NFOSA/ OSTI. Response- Totally disagree. The duty lies on the Insurer to do a thorough investigation. The mere fact that the actions of the Participant failed in appointing a specialist prior to rejecting the claim, and failing to follow the recommendations of the WAIDLER Report is proof enough to show that despite the claim being registered on 29 March 2023, and again on 22 June 2023, that the Participant is deliberately delaying the claim. The failure of the NFOSA/ OSTI to answer emails, calls and other, present incorrect and unfair findings, is further proof on the Balance of Probabilities that the Participant is influencing the offices of the NFOSA/ OSTI. CONCLUSION: a. There is no need to comment on the rest of the report. b. The report is biased and NON-FACTUAL. c. At no point in the entire report, has the offices of the NFOSA/ OSTI commented once on the failures of the Participant. P a g e | 63 d. There are zero points raised against the Participant that has failed in their duty as imposed by the Laws of RSA by the NFOSA/ OSTI. e. IT IS THEREFORE STATED THAT THIS REPORT LACKS ANY CREDIBILITY OF BEING FAIR, AND HAS NOW BECOME A MATTER OF COLLUSION WITH THE PARTICIPANT TO CONTINUE ON THEIR PATH OF VICTIMIZATION, AND IN DOING SO, IS AGAINST TCF AND THE Prevention and Combating of ******* Activities Act, 2003. SIGNED 24 JULY 2024 IN CENTURION SOUTH AFRICA. QJ Wild Pedlar. P a g e | 64