1 reviews | Active since Jul 2016
UNPROFESSIONAL AND ********* BEHAVIOUR
I lodged a claim with Smart Insurance for minor scratches, they asked me to email the photos for the scratches and get a quote that was done and emailed to them on the 19/01/18. On the 21/01/18 I received a call from them saying that my claim has been repudiated, I requested them to respond in writing and give me reason/s for that. They promised to email it to me as soon as possible. The company is very unprofessional I waited for the email up until I decided to write on the 30/01/18 and ask them for a written response as per our discussion. On the 31st (today) they sent a letter and they did not even apologies about the delay. Same thing happened in 2016 when I requested written reasons for repudiating my claim but they did not give me till to date. The rejection letter is stating that my claim has been repudiated because the scratches are more than 15cm and they don’t replaced body panel that has been ripped, torn, perforated. I was very surprised because they did not see or assess the car furthermore it was confirmed by the Registered Panel beaters that the damage is 7cm. Quotation is clear it is for panting not replacing anything. How can I claim a body panel yet I know exactly that they are dealing with scratches? This company is unprofessional and *********, instead of keeping their promise they try by all means to get something that will assist them to repudiate a claim even if the reason/s is not valid. How can their decision be based on photos that were not taken by a professional photographer and how do they measure cm on the photo? This company is not loyal to their customers. I want this company to do what is right for their client and their decision/s must be based on facts not assumptions. This is **************** and total infringement of consumer’s right in terms of the Consumer Protection Act. I am prepared to take this matter further as I cannot allow this company to violate people’s right.
Dear Madam,
SMART UMA has investigated your complaint and noted your comments and wish to respond as follows:
The product that forms the basis of your complaint is a Wesbank Streamline Maintenance plan which provides cover against minor damages sustained to your vehicle caused by day to day driving, and from damages that may result from every day wear and tear. The contract has a maximum indemnity limit of R3 000.00 VAT inclusive subject to the policy terms and conditions being adhered to as noted in the schedule.
During our investigation of this complaint it was established that an incident was reported on the 17/11/2016. It was reported that vehicle required repair / restoration of the vehicles right rear fender, rear bumper, right front door and door handle - where the normal claims procedure was followed.
Upon receipt thereof a mobile unit was requested to attend to the assessment of the vehicles damages reported. Please note that all damages were taken into account in order to assess the respective incident, as it was evident that the damage was too big to be conducted by the Streamline mobile repair unit. Regrettably the said repairs / restorations are specifically excluded from the scope of cover – we then proceeded to reject the claim as the damages quoted for which equates to R 25,670.46 including VAT exceeds the policy indemnity limit of R 3 000.00 VAT inclusive.
Our records indicate that a formal letter of rejection was communicated with you on the 20/12/2016 notifying you of the reasons for rejection as mentioned above.
Furthermore, maintenance work in excess of the limit is usually not minor maintenance and may be covered under a comprehensive motor insurance policy.
The claim in contention was logged on the 20/12/2017. It was reported that vehicle required repair / restoration of the vehicles left front bumper. The normal claims procedure was again followed.
Upon receiving the requested information – we proceeded to reject the claim as the damages quoted for exceeds indemnity size limit and regrettably is specifically excluded from the scope of cover as the total surface area – radius – exceeding the 15cm size limit.
In addition we do not provide maintenance or restoration to a body panel that has been ripped, torn, perforated or has damage to the structure or alignment of the panel.
A formal letter of rejection was communicated with you on the 22/01/2018 notifying you of the reasons thereof.
The registration of the above incident will have no adverse effect on your policy, however you may not claim for the same damages at a later stage. Regrettably new damage will also be declined should it be on the same panel affected and declined under this claim.
In view of the matter, we remain of the opinion that your claim was administered correctly and in line with the policy terms and conditions.
Risk Management Complaints Division
Tel No: ***
Email:***
Dear Madam,
SMART UMA has investigated your complaint and noted your comments and wish to respond as follows:
The product that forms the basis of your complaint is a Wesbank Streamline Maintenance plan which provides cover against minor damages sustained to your vehicle caused by day to day driving, and from damages that may result from every day wear and tear. The contract has a maximum indemnity limit of R3 000.00 VAT inclusive subject to the policy terms and conditions being adhered to as noted in the schedule.
During our investigation of this complaint it was established that an incident was reported on the 17/11/2016. It was reported that vehicle required repair / restoration of the vehicles right rear fender, rear bumper, right front door and door handle - where the normal claims procedure was followed.
Upon receipt thereof a mobile unit was requested to attend to the assessment of the vehicles damages reported. Please note that all damages were taken into account in order to assess the respective incident, as it was evident that the damage was too big to be conducted by the Streamline mobile repair unit. Regrettably the said repairs / restorations are specifically excluded from the scope of cover – we then proceeded to reject the claim as the damages quoted for which equates to R 25,670.46 including VAT exceeds the policy indemnity limit of R 3 000.00 VAT inclusive.
Our records indicate that a formal letter of rejection was communicated with you on the 20/12/2016 notifying you of the reasons for rejection as mentioned above.
Furthermore, maintenance work in excess of the limit is usually not minor maintenance and may be covered under a comprehensive motor insurance policy.
The claim in contention was logged on the 20/12/2017. It was reported that vehicle required repair / restoration of the vehicles left front bumper. The normal claims procedure was again followed.
Upon receiving the requested information – we proceeded to reject the claim as the damages quoted for exceeds indemnity size limit and regrettably is specifically excluded from the scope of cover as the total surface area – radius – exceeding the 15cm size limit.
In addition we do not provide maintenance or restoration to a body panel that has been ripped, torn, perforated or has damage to the structure or alignment of the panel.
A formal letter of rejection was communicated with you on the 22/01/2018 notifying you of the reasons thereof.
The registration of the above incident will have no adverse effect on your policy, however you may not claim for the same damages at a later stage. Regrettably new damage will also be declined should it be on the same panel affected and declined under this claim.
In view of the matter, we remain of the opinion that your claim was administered correctly and in line with the policy terms and conditions.
Risk Management Complaints Division
Tel No: ***
Email:***