Santam - Looks out for every excuse without proper evidence not to payout

I write to you as I am not satisfied with the outcome of my claim which was logged on the 25th of July 2023 which has subsequently been rejected. Claim Number: *** - Insured: Mr. Mohamed R Khan Policy number ***

A claim was logged for a burst pipe in the shower section of the bathroom. This was evident as there is dampness on the wall adjacent to the shower which is clearly visible in the room next to the bathroom. Besides the dampness there is also proof of water that runs down the wall from about 1,5m high which is causing the dampness and not a leak from the shower outlet and shower base which is mentioned in the rejection letter.

When the claim was logged KRDF African Plumbing was initially assigned to the incident. They came out and after inspection they indicated to me that there is definitely a burst pipe in the wall which is causing the dampness and this is what they also reported. However, a second plumber, Layters Plumbing was then re-assigned to the claim and without doing a leak detection test they mentioned that the cause of the dampness is due to the shower outlet and shower base leaking and causing the dampness in the wall. This is even after I personally showed them the traces of water that runs down the wall from the adjacent room.

It is surprising that the first plumbers that were assigned to the claim KRDF African Plumbing indicated that there is definitely a burst pipe in the wall which is causing the dampness and why were they not assigned to fix the problem but rather another plumber was sent out?

Firstly, why was there a second plumber assigned after KRDF African Plumbing? and there is no report of the leak detection test that Layters Plumbing was supposed to have done to prove their claim?

There was no leak detection test done as I was present when Layters Plumbing came out.

When the claim was logged I agreed for a leak detection test to be done and agreed to pay the excess amount of R500 and yet the leak detection was not done and based on Layters Plumbers feedback this claim has been rejected. Layters Plumbers did not even remove the shower outlet cover to prove that there is a leak perhaps in the shower trap that was causing the leak.

Even after numerous telephone calls to the Broker, Claim Service Consultant (Dineo Motshoeneng) and even to the Home Assist Team on telephone number *** explaining to them of the clear evidence of water that runs down the wall none of them took heed to even suggest for a assessor to come out and assess the claim.

The fact that there are two different outcomes from the plumbers and only the latter's report is taken into consideration clearly indicates that Santam is not for the client but rather so that they will look for every excuse not to payout.