They never had any intention of accepting the claim # 16/089869

We live on a large corner property, two adjoining erfs, on an intersection. On the two sides of the property the boundary wall is about 3m above street level. Nov 2016 was a very wet month and the water mains on the one road burst several times. The municipality decided to replace the pipe and dug a 1.5m trench the length of the road on the one side of our property. Then we noticed the boundary wall started leaning outwards. I phoned the municipality to warn them of the danger to their workers. Not their problem but the contractors - really ?? Then I proactively phoned SBI, after all they were insuring the property (or so I believed) so they should take the necessary action to safeguard the asset - wrong !! The assessor came and asked permission to be on site and take pics, which he did with a cell phone. No discussion whatsoever. I heard nothing further then after numerous calls and emails I got an email stating that my claim had been rejected because the wall was not built to regulations - what ?? I wasn't even aware I had submitted a claim ! So I asked for the report many times - nothing. Then in March 2017, four months later, during a severe thunderstorm the wall fell down. I emailed SBI again and immediately I received two emails from two different people stating again that the claim had been rejected because the wall didn't comply and they finally sent a copy of the "assessor 's" report. Wow - this was interesting reading ! The report said the wall had collapsed - it hadn't, it was leaning. It said that it retained 1.8m of soil -it didn't, it retained 1m of soil. It said the whole wall had a width of 220mm - it didn't, it was 330mm below the soil level. It said it had no piers - it had piers. It said it was 2.3m high - this at least was right. The person who signed the assessor's report had also never been on site. I phoned and wrote to SBI to come and see now that the wall had collapsed exactly how it was built. No, they wouldn't come on site. So I contracted a firm of civil engineers, Sinakho Consulting, to check the wall. They were on site three times before submitting their report. Surprise, Surprise !! They confirmed that the assessor's report was false and also confirmed that the wall did in fact conform to the regulations even though it had been built well before the regulations had been promulgated. Interesting as to where the 1.8m of retained soil came from: according to the regulations if a wall retains 1.8m of soil or more, it is classed as a retaining wall with more stringent regulations. Less than 1.8m it is not a retaining wall. Question: was the "assessor" briefed to turn the wall into a retaining wall ? It didn't matter anyway as the engineers agreed that it conformed anyway. So the engineer's report went off the SBI. After many calls and emails they eventually came back and said the claim was still rejected for the same original reasons. Wow ! The facts ignored ! So off to the Ombudsman. After explaining all of the above three times and to-ing and fro-ing for many months, I get a reply from the Ombudsman upholding the rejection of the claim. Again all the facts ignored. So I ask the assessor to come on site and check the facts. No, not going to do that either. So where do I stand ? Seems like the same place as many others who have posted reviews on this site - absolutely nowhere. I have paid my premiums to my "broker", SBI, for 47 years thinking they were there to look after my interests and ensure that I did not get caught by circumstances beyond my control which could result in situation that would leave me compromised. Very wrong ! The wall is rebuilt at a personal cost of R200 000. I believe that SBI never had any intention of accepting this claim. I know of several people who have had boundary wall issues and have had their claims rejected for the very same reason. How ********* is that ? ********** ? Needless to say I am no longer insured with SBI and I have also cancelled my access bond (which has had a null balance for 20 years). SB coerce the bond holders into taking their insurance which is an easy option, knowing full well that they will do everything in their power not to honor their commitment. As for the Ombudsman - a watchdog that is both toothless and blind. Use a broker who has your best interests at heart, after all, that is what you are paying for....