Santam’s unacceptable handling of a third-party motor claim: Delays, poor communication and a vehicle left with a security concern

My experience with Santam’s handling of a third-party motor claim has been incredibly frustrating and raises serious concerns about its claims administration, communication and sense of urgency.

On 17 September 2026, my vehicle was rear-ended by a Santam-insured driver while I was stationary at a stop sign. Despite being the innocent third party, I have spent weeks navigating unnecessary administrative delays, repeated requests for information and a claims process that appears to lack urgency.

Initially, I had to deal with a broker, which delayed the process of obtaining a claim number until mid-October. Once the matter was transferred to Santam, I was asked to provide further documentation, photographs and a quotation. I complied, only to be told that an additional quotation and more photographs were required, including a photograph of my gear lever. The repeated requests raise questions about whether the requirements are being communicated clearly and comprehensively from the outset.

What is particularly unacceptable is the communication turnaround time. After submitting the requested information, I waited approximately four to five days for a response informing me that certain details were supposedly missing. Had I not followed up and questioned this, how much longer would my claim have sat unattended?

It was only after I queried the failed email submissions that I was informed that emails with attachments exceeding 20 MB would bounce back. Why is this limitation not communicated upfront when a claimant is specifically instructed to submit multiple photographs and documents? If there is a size restriction, surely the appropriate process is to inform claimants beforehand and provide an alternative submission method from the beginning. Instead, I had to encounter the problem myself before being given a WhatsApp number as an alternative.

For context, personal Gmail accounts allow attachments of up to 25 MB, while email limits can differ depending on the provider and receiving system. A claimant should not have to discover these technical limitations through trial and error while an already delayed claim remains unresolved.

More concerning is that my vehicle has a functional and security issue following the collision. The boot does not always lock as it should, and closing it after opening can be difficult. This is not merely an inconvenience; it is a concern about the security and proper functioning of my vehicle. Despite communicating the practical impact of the damage, I have yet to see the urgency I would reasonably expect.

As someone who works within the Sanlam/Santam group, I find this experience particularly disappointing. I understand that claims require documentation and verification. However, there is a difference between conducting reasonable checks and allowing a process to become unnecessarily prolonged because requirements are communicated piecemeal and emails take days to receive a response.

I would expect a clear service standard, proactive communication and reasonable turnaround times, particularly when dealing with third-party claims involving damage caused by an insured client. Instead, nearly seven weeks after the incident, I am still trying to move the matter forward.

I have deliberately chosen not to claim through my own insurer because I do not believe I should have to initiate a claim under my own policy for an incident in which I was not at fault, potentially affecting my claims history or future premiums. I expect Santam to deal with the matter arising from its insured driver’s actions fairly, efficiently and professionally.

My questions to Santam are straightforward:

* Why was I not provided with a complete list of required documents, photographs and quotations at the outset? * Why are claimants not proactively informed of attachment-size restrictions when email is the prescribed submission method? * Why does it take approximately four to five days to communicate that information is missing, particularly when a delayed response creates further delays? * What urgency is being applied to a vehicle that has a reported boot-locking and closing issue? * When will this claim be properly assessed and progressed towards resolution?

I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking for basic communication, efficient administration and accountability.

Santam, please stop making an already stressful situation more difficult than it needs to be. I would appreciate a substantive response, a clear explanation of the outstanding requirements, confirmation of the claim’s current status and a realistic timeline for the next steps.

A third-party claimant should not have to chase an insurer repeatedly just to get a claim moving. This experience has left me deeply dissatisfied and concerned about how efficiently such matters are handled.