Santam not prepared to be fair and transparent

<p>I am currently in the process of trying to resolve and finalise a 3rd party claim for a motor vehicle accident that occured on the 19th of November 2016 with Santam. The accident was caused by an employee of TUV Rheinland SA and was driving a company car at the time, the driver hit my vehicle (a 2015 Toyota Etios XS 1.5 with 31995Km on the clock) directly at the back on a dry, straight road during the day whilstthe sun was shining. The damage to my vehicle has been quoted at R136691.02 and the cost of the vehicle when I bought it was +-R148000.00, the math is self explanatory. This amount does not factor in the cost of having the car sit at the panel beater every day that this remains unresolved. It also does not factor in the fact that I have been unable to work since then due to the nature of my work and the absolute need for a vehicle (I have provided proof thereof).</p> <p> </p> <p>After dealing with an exceptionally rude and plainly useless consultant by the name of Julia Mogase (which I see has a fair amount of complaints about her service already that do not seem to have been addressed by Santam as the same J Mogase continues to provide nothing short of disgraceful service) and waiting a total of 71 working/business for the first settlement proposal to be sent to me which offered a settlement of R10998.19 in total. The proposal goes onto say, I quote verbatim, "The offer is based on the fact that you skipped a stop street, turned in from of our insured, making an accident un-avoidable". Santam and/or J Mogase has yet been able to substantiate this statement. Furthermore, I have in good faith that the insured's statement does not say anything of the sort aand it would not matter as the accident was a hit from the BACK. From where I am standing (and considering that niether Sanatm nor J Mogase seem to want to defend otherwise) it seems that iether J Mogase is left do as she pleases and is simply an awful human being trying to capitalize on others' misfortune or Santam is bullying a young lady that has no one in her corner into accepting AN UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM, A LUDACRIS PROPOSAL AND A PITIFUL SETTLEMENT simply because they can gain from paying out less. I am not stating this as fact, it is only what I am interpreting from the manner in which this has been, or rather has not been handled. I further believe this to be the case as I have attempted to get answers and transparent information via email and they simply do not reply. Please see the email pasted below, to which I recieved no response.</p> <p> </p> <p>Myself and my lawyer as well as TUV Rheinland and Brolink(the broker) have made numerous attempts to resolve this with no success. I would like to take the opportunity here to note that TUV and Brolink have been absolutely stunning and have tried to help in any way they can.</p> <p> </p> <p>The email sent 06/06/2017</p> <p>Good day J Mogase,</p> <p>Firstly, I do not accept the proposal attached. My reason being that I have in good faith that the statement "The offer is based on the fact that you skipped a stop street, turned in from of our insured, making an accident un-avoidable" is in fact entirely false and that you have been advised otherwise on more than one occasion. As per my affidavit, the police report as well as the letter of demand sent to you on my behalf the accident was not unavoidable and was in fact the fault of your client, Mr Abdul Mabaso.</p> <p>Furthermore, by definition an accident from the back or a bumper bashing is as follows, A" bumper bashing refers to an incident where the driver hits the rear end of the car in front. In most cases, the driver at the back can be held at fault because he or she was unable to stop in time to avoid the accident. It may also be argued that this person is at fault because they failed to keep a safe following distance" It is therefore inaccurate for you to make the statement "The offer is based on the fact that you skipped a stop street, turned in from of our insured, making an accident un-avoidable".</p> <p>Over and above your statement lacking any evidence to substantiate it, you J. Mogase, have managed to incorrectly communicate what you are attempting to claim in the sentence "The offer is based on the fact that you skipped a stop street, turned in from of our insured, making an accident un-avoidable". I am assuming you were trying to say "..turned in front of...". Secondly, in the email with the proposal document attached, you have additionally attached the quotations and further correspondence regarding your insureds' vehicle? Is this of any relevance to me? And if you are able to send on this information regarding your insured to me, then it is reasonable for me to assume that you can send on documents that are able to provide evidence (in the form of your insureds statement pertaining to the accident) that may or may not substantiate your claim in the proposal document, being; "The offer is based on the fact that you skipped a stop street, turned in from of our insured, making an accident un-avoidable".</p> <p>You, as J Mogase and Santam, as a whole should be informed that you are mistaken if you believe that you are going to bully me into accepting R10998.19 as a settlement for a 2015 1.5 xs etios, with 31995km on the clock (at the time of the accident), that has now got R136691.02 worth of damage from a hit to the back by your client. The proposal is an insult and the claims made in the document are, as it stands, unsubstantiated. This communicates bullying and an intention to elude payment for the claim that has been confirmed by means of statements, the police accident report, the letter of demand (which is written under oath) sent to you by my lawyer, Wouter Botha, as well as affidavits and furthermore substantiated by the physical damage to the BACK of the vehicle and the nature of the accident and the fact that it occurred on a dual carriage way (Jean Avenue - not on any corner), during the day or whilst the sun was shining and the road was dry.</p> <p>Please be informed that I will be taking this and all of the information pertaining to the claim to every social media platform, furthermore I will be taking this to the ombudsman, my lawyers and to hello peter. I will be sure to include that I have been made to wait a total of 71 business/working days until first proposal was sent to me. This also indicates the lack of priority and integrity displayed by J Mogase and Santam regarding the claim. I am sure that this along with the facts stated above will make for a substantial argument on my part that either J Mogase and/or Santam does not have the intention of handling this claim fairly and considering the facts and information provided. I believe that the current comments on J Mogase and the service that has been offered by herself online will also be beneficial to my argument. I expect to have a formal response by the close of business today, your failure to address my queries regarding this proposal will be interpreted as a reiteration of Santam's lack of commitment to resolving this matter in a fair and transparent manner and will be communicated to all parties and platforms as such. In addition, I will continue to query the statements made until I have been provided proof of the information that is to substantiate the statement made in the first proposal as well as a fully substantiated, transparent proposal is made.</p> <p>Sincerely,<br />Olivia</p>