ML
Morné Lötter
1 reviews | Active since Aug 2019
23 Aug 2019, 11:02
SANTAM not willing to assist us after the Church roof got damaged in a storm
We as a church have experienced the real cold side of our Insurance Company and Brokers, PSG. Santam decided not to pay out a claim we made during Nov 2018 after a storm devastated our Church roof on 17 November 2018. 6 Kingpost trusses broke and many other trusses were placed under a lot of pressure. The Insurance Giant said: No roof bracing, Defective design, And No maintenance done on the trusses.
Our current church building is older than 60 years. At the time it was build everything was good and the spoken about bracing wasn't even on the market at the time. We've always paid for our insurance. Also, there was no indication on the inside we had any leaks cause the ceiling would've shown it and it didn't show.
I see this as a loophole the Insurance took not taking care of us as the client. We've reported this case in January 2019 at the Ombudsman for Short term insurance, but with no avail, cause July 2019 the Ombudsman decided in the favour of Santam.
So we have no choice after 8 months not having access to our church sanctuary we have to restore it on our own costs.
Helpful (0)
Replies (2)0
Replies (2)
Santam's replyOfficial
26 Aug 2019, 08:45Good day Morne,
We acknowledge receipt of your post above.
Unfortunately we will not be able to assist or address your concerns on this platform.
We note you have already approached the office of the Ombudsman which is the highest authority in the country in respect of complaints handling.
Reference number L2/19 and as you have mentioned, have they ruled in favour of the insurer.
If you have any further concerns or questions you will have to direct all communication directly to their office.
Thank you and kind regards.
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
We acknowledge receipt of your post above.
Unfortunately we will not be able to assist or address your concerns on this platform.
We note you have already approached the office of the Ombudsman which is the highest authority in the country in respect of complaints handling.
Reference number L2/19 and as you have mentioned, have they ruled in favour of the insurer.
If you have any further concerns or questions you will have to direct all communication directly to their office.
Thank you and kind regards.
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
Santam's reply26 Aug 2019, 08:45
Official
Good day Morne,
We acknowledge receipt of your post above.
Unfortunately we will not be able to assist or address your concerns on this platform.
We note you have already approached the office of the Ombudsman which is the highest authority in the country in respect of complaints handling.
Reference number L2/19 and as you have mentioned, have they ruled in favour of the insurer.
If you have any further concerns or questions you will have to direct all communication directly to their office.
Thank you and kind regards.
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
We acknowledge receipt of your post above.
Unfortunately we will not be able to assist or address your concerns on this platform.
We note you have already approached the office of the Ombudsman which is the highest authority in the country in respect of complaints handling.
Reference number L2/19 and as you have mentioned, have they ruled in favour of the insurer.
If you have any further concerns or questions you will have to direct all communication directly to their office.
Thank you and kind regards.
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
ML
Morné Lötter's updateReviewer Update
26 Aug 2019, 09:28Good day Mr Olivier
Thanks for your swift response sir in this regard and acknowledging our post above. I also understand you cannot address our concerns on this platform and we’re ok with that.
Yes, as stated in my review we did approach the Ombudsman and he did decide to stand with the Insurance Company’s decision.
We’re ok with that, but we’re still not ok with the way your people at Santam addressed the claim or the way the Engineer told me and the Finance Chairperson of our Church that he doesn’t approve any roof damages that he receive. So he prepared us. He didn’t even inspect the trusses physically but did it from the photos I took.
That’s not the only issue here. But we have friends and colleagues who feel grieved in the way things were handled by Santam. I kept record of all communications. Your engineer took wind speed for that day 17Nov 2018 and said we **** cause the wind could’ve not cause any breakages on the trusses. After that storm I had to struggle to get our 7x7meter plastic swimming pool out of the tree in the backyard of our house. It took me and 3 men 4 hours to clean around the church that day in preparation for the Sunday service.
That being said. Santam could’ve done something or even met us halfway on our claim. They chose to do nothing but still every month claim the whole installment as if we’re at liberty to use our church building wee paying insurance on. For 8months we weren’t able to use our church for worship services. You should pay back those fees we paid for the Church building at least.
I’ve already spoken telephonically to the Ombudsman and emails sent to their office didn’t receive any response to reopen the case. The Ombudsman or his designee as such didn’t made the trouble to visit our Church building at all before their decision.
I cannot direct communications to the Ombudsman. This platform @Hellopeter provides for us as the aggrieved customers to get the news out there and send a warning to our fellow brothers and sisters about the loophole of Servicing the Roof trusses they don’t tell you about. Get the trusses looked at cause Insurance Companies like Santam and Others will for sure reject your claim on roof damages should you not serviced the trusses and have proof of that. Especially older buildings like ours, 60yrs +.
Have a great day and thanks for listening Mr Olivier.
Have a blessed week.
Thanks for your swift response sir in this regard and acknowledging our post above. I also understand you cannot address our concerns on this platform and we’re ok with that.
Yes, as stated in my review we did approach the Ombudsman and he did decide to stand with the Insurance Company’s decision.
We’re ok with that, but we’re still not ok with the way your people at Santam addressed the claim or the way the Engineer told me and the Finance Chairperson of our Church that he doesn’t approve any roof damages that he receive. So he prepared us. He didn’t even inspect the trusses physically but did it from the photos I took.
That’s not the only issue here. But we have friends and colleagues who feel grieved in the way things were handled by Santam. I kept record of all communications. Your engineer took wind speed for that day 17Nov 2018 and said we **** cause the wind could’ve not cause any breakages on the trusses. After that storm I had to struggle to get our 7x7meter plastic swimming pool out of the tree in the backyard of our house. It took me and 3 men 4 hours to clean around the church that day in preparation for the Sunday service.
That being said. Santam could’ve done something or even met us halfway on our claim. They chose to do nothing but still every month claim the whole installment as if we’re at liberty to use our church building wee paying insurance on. For 8months we weren’t able to use our church for worship services. You should pay back those fees we paid for the Church building at least.
I’ve already spoken telephonically to the Ombudsman and emails sent to their office didn’t receive any response to reopen the case. The Ombudsman or his designee as such didn’t made the trouble to visit our Church building at all before their decision.
I cannot direct communications to the Ombudsman. This platform @Hellopeter provides for us as the aggrieved customers to get the news out there and send a warning to our fellow brothers and sisters about the loophole of Servicing the Roof trusses they don’t tell you about. Get the trusses looked at cause Insurance Companies like Santam and Others will for sure reject your claim on roof damages should you not serviced the trusses and have proof of that. Especially older buildings like ours, 60yrs +.
Have a great day and thanks for listening Mr Olivier.
Have a blessed week.
ML
Morné Lötter's update26 Aug 2019, 09:28
Reviewer Update
Good day Mr Olivier
Thanks for your swift response sir in this regard and acknowledging our post above. I also understand you cannot address our concerns on this platform and we’re ok with that.
Yes, as stated in my review we did approach the Ombudsman and he did decide to stand with the Insurance Company’s decision.
We’re ok with that, but we’re still not ok with the way your people at Santam addressed the claim or the way the Engineer told me and the Finance Chairperson of our Church that he doesn’t approve any roof damages that he receive. So he prepared us. He didn’t even inspect the trusses physically but did it from the photos I took.
That’s not the only issue here. But we have friends and colleagues who feel grieved in the way things were handled by Santam. I kept record of all communications. Your engineer took wind speed for that day 17Nov 2018 and said we **** cause the wind could’ve not cause any breakages on the trusses. After that storm I had to struggle to get our 7x7meter plastic swimming pool out of the tree in the backyard of our house. It took me and 3 men 4 hours to clean around the church that day in preparation for the Sunday service.
That being said. Santam could’ve done something or even met us halfway on our claim. They chose to do nothing but still every month claim the whole installment as if we’re at liberty to use our church building wee paying insurance on. For 8months we weren’t able to use our church for worship services. You should pay back those fees we paid for the Church building at least.
I’ve already spoken telephonically to the Ombudsman and emails sent to their office didn’t receive any response to reopen the case. The Ombudsman or his designee as such didn’t made the trouble to visit our Church building at all before their decision.
I cannot direct communications to the Ombudsman. This platform @Hellopeter provides for us as the aggrieved customers to get the news out there and send a warning to our fellow brothers and sisters about the loophole of Servicing the Roof trusses they don’t tell you about. Get the trusses looked at cause Insurance Companies like Santam and Others will for sure reject your claim on roof damages should you not serviced the trusses and have proof of that. Especially older buildings like ours, 60yrs +.
Have a great day and thanks for listening Mr Olivier.
Have a blessed week.
Thanks for your swift response sir in this regard and acknowledging our post above. I also understand you cannot address our concerns on this platform and we’re ok with that.
Yes, as stated in my review we did approach the Ombudsman and he did decide to stand with the Insurance Company’s decision.
We’re ok with that, but we’re still not ok with the way your people at Santam addressed the claim or the way the Engineer told me and the Finance Chairperson of our Church that he doesn’t approve any roof damages that he receive. So he prepared us. He didn’t even inspect the trusses physically but did it from the photos I took.
That’s not the only issue here. But we have friends and colleagues who feel grieved in the way things were handled by Santam. I kept record of all communications. Your engineer took wind speed for that day 17Nov 2018 and said we **** cause the wind could’ve not cause any breakages on the trusses. After that storm I had to struggle to get our 7x7meter plastic swimming pool out of the tree in the backyard of our house. It took me and 3 men 4 hours to clean around the church that day in preparation for the Sunday service.
That being said. Santam could’ve done something or even met us halfway on our claim. They chose to do nothing but still every month claim the whole installment as if we’re at liberty to use our church building wee paying insurance on. For 8months we weren’t able to use our church for worship services. You should pay back those fees we paid for the Church building at least.
I’ve already spoken telephonically to the Ombudsman and emails sent to their office didn’t receive any response to reopen the case. The Ombudsman or his designee as such didn’t made the trouble to visit our Church building at all before their decision.
I cannot direct communications to the Ombudsman. This platform @Hellopeter provides for us as the aggrieved customers to get the news out there and send a warning to our fellow brothers and sisters about the loophole of Servicing the Roof trusses they don’t tell you about. Get the trusses looked at cause Insurance Companies like Santam and Others will for sure reject your claim on roof damages should you not serviced the trusses and have proof of that. Especially older buildings like ours, 60yrs +.
Have a great day and thanks for listening Mr Olivier.
Have a blessed week.