PV
Pieter V
1 reviews | Active since May 2022
10 Jun 2022, 13:37
Unreliable Santam and coldhearted Linda Bredenkamp
I tried to claim for damages as a result of the KZN floods, but kept on getting rejected after having numerous attempts to explain the accurate fact pattern to them, especially Linda Bredenkamp. Consultant Linda Bredenkamp was very unhelpful, unpleasant and uncaring and made no effort to assist me in any way. Linda Bredenkamp just had no sympathy with the people who were impacted by the floods in KZN. Truly a disappointed how Linda Bredenkamp handled this flood situation in KZN.
Helpful (0)
Replies (11)0
Replies (11)
Santam's replyOfficial
10 Jun 2022, 13:56Good day Thank you for your post. We will be in contact with you shortly. Regards Client Care
Santam's reply10 Jun 2022, 13:56
Official
Good day Thank you for your post. We will be in contact with you shortly. Regards Client Care
PV
Pieter V's updateReviewer Update
14 Jun 2022, 20:02Don’t be fooled with Santam responding here. It’s just a smokescreen. Santam is really an ************* and unreliable insurance company who doesn’t care about people and people like Linda Bredenkamp working for Santam will not go the extra mile for a client.
PV
Pieter V's update14 Jun 2022, 20:02
Reviewer Update
Don’t be fooled with Santam responding here. It’s just a smokescreen. Santam is really an ************* and unreliable insurance company who doesn’t care about people and people like Linda Bredenkamp working for Santam will not go the extra mile for a client.
Santam's replyOfficial
15 Jun 2022, 07:23Dear Pieter,
We have responded to you in detail offline and do not use this platform for our responses.
We do apologise for the bad experience you have had.
Our decision remains as explained and you have been provided with the escalation channels to follow should you wish to do so.
Thank you and kind regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
We have responded to you in detail offline and do not use this platform for our responses.
We do apologise for the bad experience you have had.
Our decision remains as explained and you have been provided with the escalation channels to follow should you wish to do so.
Thank you and kind regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
Santam's reply15 Jun 2022, 07:23
Official
Dear Pieter,
We have responded to you in detail offline and do not use this platform for our responses.
We do apologise for the bad experience you have had.
Our decision remains as explained and you have been provided with the escalation channels to follow should you wish to do so.
Thank you and kind regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
We have responded to you in detail offline and do not use this platform for our responses.
We do apologise for the bad experience you have had.
Our decision remains as explained and you have been provided with the escalation channels to follow should you wish to do so.
Thank you and kind regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
PV
Pieter V's updateReviewer Update
26 Jun 2022, 11:38Stephan, yes, you have responded based on Santam’s internal data. But not once have you gathered information from me on the claim. That is one-way communication if you ask me. Poor and bad service. I have asked for calls, meetings and/or visits, but none up to today. Is that fair? I am still fully available for calls, meetings and visits. You are part of Santam’s care team right? Hand on heart, do you really care? Also, when is the claim paying out like you indicted in your e-mail from the internal data you gathered?
PV
Pieter V's update26 Jun 2022, 11:38
Reviewer Update
Stephan, yes, you have responded based on Santam’s internal data. But not once have you gathered information from me on the claim. That is one-way communication if you ask me. Poor and bad service. I have asked for calls, meetings and/or visits, but none up to today. Is that fair? I am still fully available for calls, meetings and visits. You are part of Santam’s care team right? Hand on heart, do you really care? Also, when is the claim paying out like you indicted in your e-mail from the internal data you gathered?
Santam's replyOfficial
27 Jun 2022, 06:58Mr Visagie,
Thank you for your comments.
As communicated to you and information obtained from the contractor who came out to quote and provide a report, our decision was made. Unfortunately a site visit would not change the outcome of the decision taken.
I have followed up with the claims team in respect of the payment for the resultant damage and requested them to urgently confirm with you once payment was made and will be available in your account.
Our claims management team has made contact with the contractor and their response for your information below:
"We have spoken to Charl who is the clients contractor who quoted on the repair . The dominant cause of the damage is most likely the differential movement between the two roofs over time. The flat roof is IBR sheeting and the other part of the roof is tiled and they expand and contract at different rates all the time. We asked Charl if the weight of the water from a storm would have caused this damage as suggested by Mr Visagie and he did not agree. The decision to reject this portion of the claim was based on the fact that the damage occurred over time and not because the client did not maintain his property. We appreciate the attempts made by the client to maintain his roof almost a year ago however it unfortunately does not change the fact that the damage on the balance of probabilities occurred over a period of time as reported by the assessor and now verified by the client’s contractor. This type of damage is unfortunately not covered and we are not in a position to reconsider our position in this matter."
there are no storm damages to the roof itself.
Our decision therefore remain unchanged.
Thank you and kind regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
Thank you for your comments.
As communicated to you and information obtained from the contractor who came out to quote and provide a report, our decision was made. Unfortunately a site visit would not change the outcome of the decision taken.
I have followed up with the claims team in respect of the payment for the resultant damage and requested them to urgently confirm with you once payment was made and will be available in your account.
Our claims management team has made contact with the contractor and their response for your information below:
"We have spoken to Charl who is the clients contractor who quoted on the repair . The dominant cause of the damage is most likely the differential movement between the two roofs over time. The flat roof is IBR sheeting and the other part of the roof is tiled and they expand and contract at different rates all the time. We asked Charl if the weight of the water from a storm would have caused this damage as suggested by Mr Visagie and he did not agree. The decision to reject this portion of the claim was based on the fact that the damage occurred over time and not because the client did not maintain his property. We appreciate the attempts made by the client to maintain his roof almost a year ago however it unfortunately does not change the fact that the damage on the balance of probabilities occurred over a period of time as reported by the assessor and now verified by the client’s contractor. This type of damage is unfortunately not covered and we are not in a position to reconsider our position in this matter."
there are no storm damages to the roof itself.
Our decision therefore remain unchanged.
Thank you and kind regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
Santam's reply27 Jun 2022, 06:58
Official
Mr Visagie,
Thank you for your comments.
As communicated to you and information obtained from the contractor who came out to quote and provide a report, our decision was made. Unfortunately a site visit would not change the outcome of the decision taken.
I have followed up with the claims team in respect of the payment for the resultant damage and requested them to urgently confirm with you once payment was made and will be available in your account.
Our claims management team has made contact with the contractor and their response for your information below:
"We have spoken to Charl who is the clients contractor who quoted on the repair . The dominant cause of the damage is most likely the differential movement between the two roofs over time. The flat roof is IBR sheeting and the other part of the roof is tiled and they expand and contract at different rates all the time. We asked Charl if the weight of the water from a storm would have caused this damage as suggested by Mr Visagie and he did not agree. The decision to reject this portion of the claim was based on the fact that the damage occurred over time and not because the client did not maintain his property. We appreciate the attempts made by the client to maintain his roof almost a year ago however it unfortunately does not change the fact that the damage on the balance of probabilities occurred over a period of time as reported by the assessor and now verified by the client’s contractor. This type of damage is unfortunately not covered and we are not in a position to reconsider our position in this matter."
there are no storm damages to the roof itself.
Our decision therefore remain unchanged.
Thank you and kind regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
Thank you for your comments.
As communicated to you and information obtained from the contractor who came out to quote and provide a report, our decision was made. Unfortunately a site visit would not change the outcome of the decision taken.
I have followed up with the claims team in respect of the payment for the resultant damage and requested them to urgently confirm with you once payment was made and will be available in your account.
Our claims management team has made contact with the contractor and their response for your information below:
"We have spoken to Charl who is the clients contractor who quoted on the repair . The dominant cause of the damage is most likely the differential movement between the two roofs over time. The flat roof is IBR sheeting and the other part of the roof is tiled and they expand and contract at different rates all the time. We asked Charl if the weight of the water from a storm would have caused this damage as suggested by Mr Visagie and he did not agree. The decision to reject this portion of the claim was based on the fact that the damage occurred over time and not because the client did not maintain his property. We appreciate the attempts made by the client to maintain his roof almost a year ago however it unfortunately does not change the fact that the damage on the balance of probabilities occurred over a period of time as reported by the assessor and now verified by the client’s contractor. This type of damage is unfortunately not covered and we are not in a position to reconsider our position in this matter."
there are no storm damages to the roof itself.
Our decision therefore remain unchanged.
Thank you and kind regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
PV
Pieter V's updateReviewer Update
27 Jun 2022, 10:10Thanks Stehan. Thanks for all the copying and pasting. I can still see this is still a one-way communication and that you are only using information from your side without a call, meeting or site visit which I have been asking for so long so I can easily clarify the fact pattern for you.
PV
Pieter V's update27 Jun 2022, 10:10
Reviewer Update
Thanks Stehan. Thanks for all the copying and pasting. I can still see this is still a one-way communication and that you are only using information from your side without a call, meeting or site visit which I have been asking for so long so I can easily clarify the fact pattern for you.
Santam's replyOfficial
27 Jun 2022, 10:22Mr Visagie,
Unfortunately our decision remain unchanged.
You may follow the escalation channel as noted to you, if you wish to do so.
Regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
Unfortunately our decision remain unchanged.
You may follow the escalation channel as noted to you, if you wish to do so.
Regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
Santam's reply27 Jun 2022, 10:22
Official
Mr Visagie,
Unfortunately our decision remain unchanged.
You may follow the escalation channel as noted to you, if you wish to do so.
Regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
Unfortunately our decision remain unchanged.
You may follow the escalation channel as noted to you, if you wish to do so.
Regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
PV
Pieter V's updateReviewer Update
27 Jun 2022, 11:20Thank you Stephan. I can still see this is still a one-way communication and that you are only using information from your side without a call, meeting or site visit which I have been asking for so long so I can easily clarify the fact pattern for you. Such a simple request I would think. Not asking you to change the world here.
PV
Pieter V's update27 Jun 2022, 11:20
Reviewer Update
Thank you Stephan. I can still see this is still a one-way communication and that you are only using information from your side without a call, meeting or site visit which I have been asking for so long so I can easily clarify the fact pattern for you. Such a simple request I would think. Not asking you to change the world here.
Santam's replyOfficial
27 Jun 2022, 11:27Mr Visagie,
As confirmed by claims management a site visit would not change the outcome of the decision taken in respect of the roof.
Unfortunately the rejection in regard to the roof will remain.
Thank you and kind regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
As confirmed by claims management a site visit would not change the outcome of the decision taken in respect of the roof.
Unfortunately the rejection in regard to the roof will remain.
Thank you and kind regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
Santam's reply27 Jun 2022, 11:27
Official
Mr Visagie,
As confirmed by claims management a site visit would not change the outcome of the decision taken in respect of the roof.
Unfortunately the rejection in regard to the roof will remain.
Thank you and kind regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
As confirmed by claims management a site visit would not change the outcome of the decision taken in respect of the roof.
Unfortunately the rejection in regard to the roof will remain.
Thank you and kind regards
Stephan Olivier
Client care media manager
PV
Pieter V's updateReviewer Update
27 Jun 2022, 22:07Thank you Stephan. Much appreciated. So Santam only engages in one-way communication with no inputs from their clients? Like I mentioned I am open for a call, meeting or site visit. Basic and simple communication inputs.
PV
Pieter V's update27 Jun 2022, 22:07
Reviewer Update
Thank you Stephan. Much appreciated. So Santam only engages in one-way communication with no inputs from their clients? Like I mentioned I am open for a call, meeting or site visit. Basic and simple communication inputs.
PV
Pieter V's updateReviewer Update
20 Jul 2022, 08:06I saw Dlamini-Zuma extending the SoD for KZN because of the floodings and was reminded of the cold shoulder that Santam gave me for my flood damage. My thoughts and prayers goes out to the families that Santam doesn’t want to help as well during these challenging times.
PV
Pieter V's update20 Jul 2022, 08:06
Reviewer Update
I saw Dlamini-Zuma extending the SoD for KZN because of the floodings and was reminded of the cold shoulder that Santam gave me for my flood damage. My thoughts and prayers goes out to the families that Santam doesn’t want to help as well during these challenging times.