Woodford Super Cover falls away if they allege negligence

• I entered into an agreement for car rental with Woodford, and included their product, Super Cover, in terms of which my liability would be limited to R5000 per incident. I was in a small accident where I reversed into a small, black tar fence pole in the dark which was not visible on the on board camera or when I looked over my shoulder. • Woodford refused to now honour this agreement for Super cover on the basis of negligence on my side, a decision come to purely from the fact that there was no 3rd party involved and deducted an amount of around R11400 of my credit card. • I pointed out to them that I was not negligent and that in order to successfully decline the cover based on any form of alleged negligence they would have to prove that there was indeed such negligence present as required in terms of the South-African law • They seem to argue that based on the fact that there was no other party involved there is automatic negligence, despite their contract specifically acknowledging that an accident with an object would be covered, unless negligence was present. Again, as per my argument – negligence cannot be assumed and must be proven. Nowhere in their contract do they state that if a third party is not involved this cover will fall away. • In the emails sent by a manager of their company it seems as if they are of the ill-considered view that the mere fact that there was no third party involved is sufficient proof of negligence to disallow a claim. They seem to believe that this is a matter of law and that there is no actual requirement to prove negligence.

I have had multiple conversations with various people and managers at Woodford that have no knowledge to discuss the terms of their agreement but still won't put me in contact with someone who does or their legal people.

After multiple fruitless attempts to resolve I have now gone to the industry Ombudsman