Auto & General
Reviews and Complaints

I joined auto & General home content insurance in 2020 March and they said i must have pictures of my insured items in case of a claim
on the 30th of March 2021 there was a break in at my house they took most important things include TV, food, clothes etc. when I claim from my policy they tell me story in order to avoid pay out though I provided pictures and info

I am. Insured with auto n general. For da last 18 months pains every premium. Up until last month I had a smal claim. Theft out of motor vehicle den I am. See8bg da true colors of da company firstly da claum staff member r complaining dey can help us clients cz dey gt vv heavy work loads dey wabt us client 2 go do all dey necessary earns lyk gtn police reports ect den dey dnt respond we hv 2 cal dem just 2 find out more n more information den suddenly dey cancel da policpolicy ybt every month dey shud call us n ask if we want a beter premium cz itger insurance company offer beter n cheaper premium so dey will call us bt 2 day wen we gt a small claim dey gv us stories wat if my mv ws stolen den how will settle y bank plz gt sum help 4 us my name is faizel my ph nom is [protected] tnkx u need help urgently

Date: 20/08/2019
Client Number: [protected] (Order no:393302)
I lodged a claim for the gate motor, I was then informed that I'll be contacted by service provider. At 13:26, I received SMS indicating that Patrick tried to call, I must call back on this number: 011 2115424.
Firstly, I never recieved nor missed a call from this Patrick, secondly, if he didn't get hold of me, why not make a follow up call?
Is this the kind of service clients are subjected to? I have never missed on paying my premiums, I don't deserve this kind of servive. It's disgusting to say the least.

The 15 January 2019 the wall fell on my daughter. I contacted auto and general and informed them. She sustained an open fracture injury and has 2 surgeries. And have a dent in her leg and 2 scars from the skin they removed. I was pressed for time and had to submit after she saw a reconstruction surgeon. He said she will need 4 procedures over a period of 4 years to improve her leg and there did not put an amount on it. Auto and General is offering me R38 000. For the costs submitted but nothing for the reconstruction of her leg. I'm going viral with this and I'm gona pursue legal action. It's a slap in my face she 8 years old lost an entire term at school she suffers from anxiety due to the accident

Claim # : 112159106
I was been advised by AFCA to lodge a formal complaint with you first.I was told by accessor that my pay out after deducting excess of $600 will be $5700 and have proof of that.Now I have been advised that you will only pay me $5400. My registration refund itself is $780 so why lie to me about my pay out?
I want the full pay out of $5700 which I initially agreed with the accessor please.
As I am told by AFCA to lodge complaint to your company first, I am doing so.If you want to pay only $5400 then please refund my registration money of $780.
I will be waiting for your response.
Thank you.
Mohammed Ahsad
[protected]

The smell - I will never forget that. Even now, 18 months later, it often catches me off guard and I struggle to breath, it clings to my clothes, it burns in my nose. I don't know what is worse - the frustration or the hopeless feeling .
Here I stand, surrounded by stone, dust and red soil - the kind which penetrates everything. The water, my clothes, my soul. It mixes with the smell of fire in my nose, until it bleeds.
Today, its frustration's turn to play master of my emotions. Why oh why did it happen to me? Why did it happen at all? Who decided it to be ok to burn down my business. Not only destroying my life, but everybody who worked there. The toll of the stress claimed the life of one of my employees when he last week died of a heart attack. He leaves behind a wife and children, who still, now even worse, have to find a way to survive.
On that fateful night, a few days before Christmas, I got the message that my business, Wheelfixit, is going up in flames. (Thinking back now, the irony of the business name struck me - nothing can be fixed). Hazards flicking, I raced to my workshop, only to find it already gutted. My eyes looked at the scene, the fire men trying to safe something, onlookers shaking their heads in disbelieve. My head felt like it was going to explode - what happened? So many questions rushed through my head, making it spin. The car that was suppose to be a Christmas gift for a customers' son who just finished matric, the horsebox of a young couple who used their hard earned savings to have it refurbished - all gone. Today still, that questions are turning and turning in my mind - especially at night, re-living the nightmare over and over. And still no answers.
I remember someone at the scene that night asking me if I have insurance. A few seconds of relief - yes! As a matter of fact, I had two insurances at that stage. I decided to change from Budget insurance to Auto & General (Telesure). The marketer from Telesure was so determined to sell me insurance which would save me money without comprising my cover. Both insurance premiums were still being deducted from my bank account at that stage.
And then the real hell started
In the weeks, months that followed, horror upon horror repeatedly struck. The fire brought me on my knees, but the way me and my employees were treated by the insurance company, the investigators and so -called experts, knocked me right down to the ground. No matter what I said, they heard only what they want to hear, blaming me for burning down my own company!
Everybody knew it was arson! It was only common sense that the search for the quilty person(s) will follow. But my insurance claim was rejected because "someone started the fire". No investigating, no case at the police - I couldn't believe what was happening. Included in my insurance was covering for lack of income. None of that realised. They decided I was guilty and nothing is going to be paid out. No evidence, no investigation, nothing.
I started my own investigation and discovered the police was not going to do anything. After talking to the Station commander, I took the investigating officer to the scene, gave him clues, lots and lots of hard evidence and photographs. Apparently the investigation team of the insurance wanted the employee who they say I paid to start the fire, to testify that I indeed paid him!
After rejecting my claim, I went to the Ombudsman. After months and months of worthless communication, needless to say they will not take a stand against the ‘mighty' Auto & General.
I appointed legal representation in an attempt to get through to the ‘right channels'. Still fighting.
Each day the public are bombarded with advertisements from insurance companies promising only wonderful service and affordable premiums. But never do you hear what happen if they are needed. When looking at comments in the media it is no secret that Auto & General is not a favorite insurance company with the majority of the public.
Tomorrow I move to a new farm - not my farm, into a little so-called ‘bywonershuisie'. I am thankful. Luckily it is a brick house, warmer than the wooden structure I called home for the past 9 months. It has running water and there is reception and no red dust … live goes on.
And I will keep on fighting until justice has prevailed.

I was contacted by an Auto and General representative from (Telesure) and promised reduced premiums compared to my current insurer, I was promised that they would take care of cancelling my current policy - this never happened. I phoned on a number of occasions / sent emails and was made promises to rectify.
The end result was that I ended up paying double insurance for 2 months.
I phoned to cancel the policy and get my premiums back - what a fiasco and what a schlep. I end up having to do all the work because of absolute incompetence by Auto And General and their representatives. I would like an official apology for the debacle - if nothing is forthcoming - I will take to social media to spread the bad news and bad service.
The service sucks and so do the attitudes.

I wish to make an official complaint against Budget Direct and their imposition of an extra excess on my recent claim.
I have had a full unblemished UK driving licence for over 20 years. I then transferred that to a full (still unblemished) NZ driving licence which I held for over 5 years.
When I moved to Australia I transfered my NZ licence to an Australian licence.
You recognise the difference between a transfered licence and a 'new' licence in your questioning so why do you impose the same 'rule' re an extra excess for not having held and Australian licence for at least 2 years?
Clearly not having held an Australian licence for at least 2 years because one passed one's test less than 2 years ago is a very different risk category of driver than one who transferred from another (civilised with commensurate or better testing regime than Au) country less than 2 years ago.
There is no loginal risk rating for this extra excess.
I therefore believe you are incorrect in applying this extra excess to experienced drivers.
I have also noted that I do not appear to have protected NCD. For the last 20 years of car insurance I have always selected to protect my NCD (despite never having had any incident in over 20 years). I can therefore only conclude that an error has been made that this was not selected.
I am therefore appealing this extra excess charge (and lack of NCD protection) and if necessary will submit this complaint to the Ombudsman.
I look forward to hearing from you with a refund of the extra excess charge and a protection of my NCD within 14 days.
If I do not hear from you by the 17th of April I will refer this matter to the Insurance Ombudsman.
Regards

After my vehicle was assessed by A&G (after an accident) they booked it for repairs at Re-new it Greenstone. The car was not fixed up to standard and had to be sent back. It's almost a month now I have not heard from the panelbeater nor my insurer after making them aware that the panelbeaters have not made any contact. I do not have transport and I spend a lot of money on public transport. The insurer offered a courtesy car at an extra cost even when it is their fault that I am stranded. How do they continue to work with thieves (Re-new it with such bad reputation)? I am extemely disappointed, frustrated, broke and stranded.

On the 11th OF April 2016 i was involved in an accident with a client of Auto & General J Rambaran. On 26 July 2016 signed documentation was submitted to Auto & General requesting payment into PD Hastibeer account . I K Adams did not sign or authorise such payments neither have i receved any payments. I requested the signed documents from Auto & General on Monday 5 December 2016 and got a call back from Vakesh and was told i could not get the documents as i need to open a case of fraud against the Hastebeers. I would appreciate if the documents was sent to my email today.

Household insurance for pensioners (Virgin ins) aka auto and general insurance

Richard goodayle : policy no. [protected] - all relevant docs faxed to calvin

During december our outbuildings were broken into and robbed. All of our gardening, camping and tools were stolen. We reported to police who came following day. Case reg 2122016 - alexandra road, pietermaritzburg. Case no. 254/1/2016. Tel no. 033-[protected].

We reported this to [protected]@telesure.Co.Za who informed us he would sort out. Now 14 february and still nothing after numerous calls. Please help.

On the 1 November 2015 I had a small accident with my vehicle. I took my vehicle to the assessment centre in Canal Walk on the 4th November. On the 6 November I received an SMS informing me that me claim was approved and that I had to call to receive further details. Upon calling I was informed that the repairs of R25853.64 to my vehicle had been approved and that a representative would be in contact with me as to where needed to take my vehicle to be repaired. A further two calls were made enquiring as to where my vehicle needed to be taken. On the third on I was informed that Tremar Coachworks on Brackenfell would repair my vehicle. I as the client had to call Tremar to find out when I can bring n my vehicle, only to be told that they were not willing to repair the vehicle and they in turn informed the assessor Azhar Botha that the repair cost was to high and that the vehicle should be written off. This is clearly incompetence on the side of the assessor. The quote that was sent to Tremar coachworks indicates repairs and replacement parts of certain items that do not need replacing and or repairing. These costs amounted to +/- R3000. The decision has now been made to write off my vehicle and a buy back option is going to be offered to me. Still waiting on this figure. I feel that if the repairs were approved initially how can Auto & General now turn around and change the decision to my vehicle been written off. I really though I had peace of mind having insurance, but with this poor service from Auto & General I now doubt that they are capable of being trust worthy insurers. Regards Derek Carroll [protected].

My daughter had an accident on 15/3/2013 in a Corsa - the accident was not caused by her - the other party admitted fault and has agreed to pay the excess. Auto n General refuse to have the car repaired because they say the insured amount is less than the cost of repairs.The difference is a mere R1799.44 - which i have said i am prepared to pay. They will not say why this is not acceptable to them and furthermore want to deduct a 35% salvage amount if i want the car and the money to have it repaired myself.No where in my policy does it say anything about the salvage amount. The car is full paid for - maintained in excellent condition - and i want to be placed in the same position as i was before the accident. In other words i want my car in excellent working order - SURELY THIS IS WHY WE INSURE OUR ASSETS.
Auto n General are unhelpful, uncaring, and a rip off. why did they insure me fully comprehensively if they are not prepared to uphold the CLIENT SERVICE CHARTER that they proclaim to abide by? They are happy to take my money but that is where it ends. I have had to go to the ombudsman and await their decision.

Our home’s contents, destroyed by fire on 30 January 2011, were insured, accurately, for R 2 million with A&G. After three absurd offers, confrontations, negotiations lasting eight months and eventual threats, final payment was only R1.5 mil. Dealing with CORPRATE BULLIES A&G was the worst experience – a horrific nightmare – worse than losing our two doggy children in the fire who screamed terrifyingly as they died. Treating us like criminals and liars, A&G used every trick to swindle us. Always new, endless excuses: items never covered in terms of the contract (which we never received despite endless requests); we were over-insured; A&G suppliers can replace items at 35% less than insured values; items become cheaper over time (yet A&G automatically increases insured amount and premiums annually!); pay-out based on replacing quality items with inferior, cheap rubbish; size of house could never accommodate R 2 million’s worth of possessions (yet A&G was happy to accept premiums on this sum each month!) and lastly – we wanted to enrich ourselves. A&G has stolen from us to enrich itself and pay bonuses to its staff! A&G has not honoured its legal responsibility to put us back in the same position as before the loss.Our greatest concern, which impacted significantly on the claim, is that we never received any official policy documents. A&G should not be allowed to treat others in the same despicable manner.

I got an insurance quote from another insurance company which was R100 cheaper per month with more benefits and a lower excess.
I asked Auto & General for a revision. I got a mail back with a revision. It was R200 more expensive than my previous insurance with them and it stated that they will deduct R1900 from my account with no explanation.

The scary part is that is not the first time my premium was increased after a revision.
They can't tell me why. Their service is downright pathetic.
Not willing to go through this whole mess again I simply cancelled and will be joining another insurer.

I took insurance with Auto And General on 24 Oct and on 26 Oct cancelled as I was offered better deal elsewhere. On 3 Nov A&G took insurance off my bank account. Started phoning for refund and got told that the refund dept will be in touch. I have phoned every day and got the run around from them and absolutely nobody from the refund dept or any other dept has phoned me yet and I still do not have my refund. I have left messages and emails for the manager and I have no reply to those either. I am spending a fortune on phone calls to their call centre where I just get the run around and I am losing interest on my bank account and being charged bank charges for a for a debit order that should never have gone thru according to their own admission. So beware trying to deal with Auto & General as they obviously cannot live up to the service charter on their website where they promise continual feedback to customers.

We are extremely unhappy with the manner in which our claim has been assessed by Paul Wilson and handled by Auto & General. The message from Auto & General is very clear: use every trick in the book to make the minimal possible payment.

We can fully understand an error or two occurring in the assessment process. However, when faced with a multitude of matters which are of major concern to us, how are we supposed to have any faith and confidence in Auto & General as an insurance company and the assessor of the contents of the house claim?

To begin with, Ed’s Honda VFR 400 was specified and insured for a very specific amount – R 30, 000 – on which monthly premiums were paid. Auto & General’s initial offer was for approximately R 23, 000 before the deduction of the excess – considerably less than what it was insured for or what it would have cost to replace this item. Why was the onus on us to prove that the replacement value was, in fact, R 36, 000? Although the final settlement was for the full amount for which the motor cycle was insured, our confidence in your company already took a knock. We have been less fortunate with the contents of the house claim. Payment in an amount of R 883, 792.00 was effected - only 44.2% of our original claim. We would like it to be placed on record that we refused this settlement amount and requested that the pay-out not be made, but this greatly reduced sum was nevertheless paid out to us.

The following are only a few selected points highlighting some, but not all, of our concerns:

1. We were insured for R 2, 012, 500, a relatively accurate account of the value of the contents of our home, and the specific amount on which we paid monthly premiums. (We were not under nor over insured).The value of the initial claim we submitted was a little less than this amount but included several items (a kitchen island, stove, oven, dishwasher etc.) which have subsequently been claimed from OUTsurance, and should not have formed part of the house contents claim. Significantly less than half of the claim has been paid out.
2. One of the major points of contention is the engagement ring, which was specified and insured with OUTsurance for R 39, 511.50. Paul Wilson offered to pay half of R 13 500 (Auto & General’s total estimated replacement value for this ring), based on a quote he obtained from one of Auto& General’s preferred suppliers. Paul Wilson assured us on more than one occasion, that Auto& General’s supplier would manufacture an identical replica in terms of quality and value. Following several communications with OUTsurance, this insurance company has re-assessed the replacement value of the ring at R 24, 375 – almost double the value assigned by Auto & General’s assessor! The message is clear: based on Auto & General’s assessment and proposed pay-out, we will not be placed in the same position as we were prior to our loss.
3. The largest electrical appliance that was destroyed in the fire was a Defy 530 litre chest freezer. Paul Wilson was made very aware of this freezer as it posed a major health risk due to its decaying contents. Paul Wilson, who viewed this item on site on more than one occasion, offered to remove the decaying contents, but this never happened. Following complaints and threats of legal action by the local Health Department, we eventually removed the decaying matter ourselves. Of greatest concern here is that Paul Wilson is offering to replace this item with a 210 litre freezer at R 2, 155 that is significantly smaller than the origianl. We recently replaced this freezer at a discounted price of R 4, 299 from Tafelberg Furniture Stores, the store from which it was originally purchased and which Paul Wilson has used to check certain prices. Again, the message is clear: based on Auto & General’s assessment and proposed pay-out, we will not be placed in the same position as we were prior to our loss.
4. With only a few exceptions, the value of every single item has been dramatically reduced, including the value of those items that were actually specified in the policy schedule at a predetermined replacement value and on which a set monthly premium was paid. (Examples: Olympus digital camera SP590 specified at R 5, 060 – Paul Wilson is offering a mere R 1, 849. We find it totally impossible that a camera, camera bag, SD card and batteries, which are not accessories but separate purchases, bought only about nine months ago could devalue to such an extent. This does not compute!)
5. The specified Sony/Ericson VIVAZ PRO (at R 4, 500 in policy schedule) mobile phone was removed from claim list all together by Paul Wilson and excluded as a result. Numerous other items (notably the indoor plants) were also blatantly excluded for no apparent reason. This is unacceptable. Again, the message is clear: based on Auto & General’s assessment and proposed pay-out, we will not be placed in the same position as we were prior to our loss.
6. The value of most items has been significantly reduced because Paul Wilson has found replacement items of vastly inferior quality from low budget suppliers – this contravenes the requirement that the insurance company places us in the identical position to which we were before the incident. We purchased all our linen (pure cotton), soft furnishings, flatware, crockery, glassware and kitchenware from quality but middle of the range stores such as Woolworths, @Home and the like. The original inventory specified where many of these items were purchased, and in many cases the make / brand was stipulated. Paul Wilson is offering a pay-out for replacements from low budget suppliers which sell totally inferior quality, substandard items such as Sheet Street (two washes and the bed linen starts to disintegrate), Checkers and such like. We have never purchased such inferior quality articles from such low budget suppliers. Again, the message is clear: based on Auto & General’s assessment and proposed pay-out, we will not be placed in the same position as we were prior to our loss.
7. We are contesting the fact that the caravan tent, which was not stored in the caravan (which was not on our premises at the time as it was being serviced) but in the garage and therefore formed part of the contents of the house, without any question, is excluded because it was a “caravan accessory”. This is absurd.
8. All additional items added to the list on 11 April have been left off the inventory except for the caravan tent, which has been excluded anyway. The matter of items which we had forgotten from the preliminary inventory was raised with Paul Wilson, for the first time, only a few days after the submission of the inventory. Again, the message is clear: based on Auto & General’s assessment and proposed pay-out, we will not be placed in the same position as we were prior to our loss.
9. All computers (with the exception of Ed’s leisure gaming computer) and every item that was in the office at the time of fire have been totally excluded because these were for “business”. An Acer laptop, however, was specified and A&G was happy to take a monthly premium for this item. (At no point were we asked about what we used this computer for at the time of specifying it). No single computer, laptop or office item was used 100% exclusively for business purposes. (The Lenovo computer used primarily, but again not exclusively, for business was saved and is NOT being claimed for!) Well in excess of 85 to 90% of the contents of the hard drives of all the computers and laptops that were destroyed in the fire involved non-business matters: personal documents and personal correspondence, a selection of games, a multitude of photographs, research and documentation relating to our hobbies – koi keeping, the keeping, breeding and showing of dogs, bonsai etc. Furthermore, stationery, staplers, punches, plastic sleeves and see-through plastic large envelopes and most other office equipment was also used for personal use and for our hobbies. Similarly, less than a tenth of the volume of the filing cabinet contained purely business related documents. Most of the contents of the filing cabinet pertained to our hobbies and other personal matters. How can these items summarily be excluded? Again, the message is clear: based on Auto & General’s assessment and proposed pay-out, we will not be placed in the same position as we were prior to our loss.
10. All equipment related to our koi (a specialist hobby and not swimming pool accessories or equipment) has been excluded, regardless of the fact that these items (koi nets, spare koi pumps, air blower, air stones and air pumps and other equipment etc.) were stored permanently in the house or in the garage and only taken outside when used. Surely this qualifies as contents of the house?
11. Additional items that were purchased separately (and not as accessories or part of a package) such as leads, computer connector cables for mobile phones and for cameras, battery chargers, sound equipment cables etc. which are not standard issue, have been excluded because they are supposedly “accessories”. Again, the message is clear: based on Auto & General’s assessment and proposed pay-out, we will not be placed in the same position as we were prior to our loss.
12. We were in the process of refurbished and repainting the house. Many of these supplies and paints were in the garage. Paul Wilson has excluded these items, along with all other paint we had in the garage as well as a great deal of Ed’s personal tools and equipment, because they are supposedly “for Ed’s business”. All Ed’s business equipment and tools were stored at the staff quarters. The contents of the garage was listed on the inventory and insured accordingly. Again, the message is clear: based on Auto & General’s assessment and proposed pay-out, we will not be placed in the same position as we were prior to our loss.
13. Paul Wilson is intent on paying out only half of the claim for dog food, dog supplies, pet medications and pet carrier boxes etc. allegedly because we are operating “in partnership” with another breeder (Mrs Lorraine Louw) who has supposedly either paid for or owns half of all our dog related possessions, or items have been excluded because her dogs were with us at our house at the time of the fire. We fail to understand where this misconception comes from or why we were not consulted in this regard. We bought the majority of our show dogs from Lorraine Louw (Bullrage Kennel) – we have paid for all of them and they are officially registered in our name. Lorraine is a friend of ours. We attend dog shows together and support one another in our hobby. There is no partnership or financial arrangement between us of any kind whatsoever. We have two dogs that are registered with the Kennel Union of Southern Africa (KUSA) in both our names – one lives permanently with her and another with us. We have one dog registered in her name but he lives with us on a permanent basis and he was with us at the time of the fire. We feed him, pay all his medical costs and are totally responsible for this dog. She has a little ### that she bred registered in our name and which we bought, but which lives with her permanently. Every bit of dog food that we purchased and subsequently lost in the fire (proof of payment given to Paul Wilson for the full amount being claimed) was for our use to feed only our dogs in our own home. None of this was for Lorraine’s or anyone else’s use or part-owned. Every bit of dog and show equipment, every dog bed, per carrier, dog leash and show chain, all medication and pet related equipment (professional grooming items etc.) in our home at the time of the fire were purchased by us, paid for in full, belonged exclusively to us for our use for our dogs. Paul Wilson met with Lorraine and somehow came up with this ridiculous idea. Lorraine says he told her he wanted to check up on the prices of things and that she never said anything about owning half of our dog related possessions.
14. Furthermore, the pet carriers were a very specific make of specialist airline approved pet carrier (Vari Kennel) used by breeders for the safest transportation of show dogs. A pay-out for low-budget, poor quality travel boxes is unaccetable. The message is categorically clear: use every and any trick to pay out the minimal amount. Once again, based on Auto & General’s assessment and proposed pay-out, we will not be placed in the same position as we were prior to our loss.
15. Paul Wilson frequently refers to the Bid or Buy website, which he has used as a source to determine the prices of several of the antiques – specifically the fine bone china and other similar items. This website is an online auction site: people make an offer for an item which is for sale. This website cannot be used to determine the real value of items. It is the potential buyer, hoping for a bargain, who determines the value of his/her bid, which cannot be confused with the actual true value of the item. This method of determining the value of fine bone china is totally unacceptable and indicates the lack of commitment and professionalism of the assessor and Auto and General. Again, the message is clear: based on Auto & General’s assessment and proposed pay-out, we will not be placed in the same position as we were prior to our loss.
16. Fine bone china (Alfred Meakin and Royal Dalton) in perfect condition cannot be replaced with sub-standard inferior quality tea sets and plates from any run-of-the mill store. Stuttafords did carry similar fine bone china and should possibly have been consulted for a more realistic replacement value. The offered pay-out is insulting and totally unacceptable. It clearly indicates the lack of commitment and professionalism on the part of the assessor and, in turn, Auto and General.
17. Paul Wilson is offering a fraction of the value of the 24-sitting Spode dinner service, lead crystal glassware, silver items and the handmade Persian carpet. The dinner service and silverware items were locked up in a cupboard in the spare bedroom and were in an excellent condition. We obtained a quote from a supplier two and a half years ago and the Spode dinner service alone was valued in the vicinity of R 150, 000.00. We in turn, added it on to our inventory at R 120, 000.00 and we paid the premium accordingly. Again, the message is clear: based on Auto & General’s assessment and proposed pay-out, we will not be placed in the same position as we were prior to our loss.

The itemised bullet points, above, highlight only a few random issues which spring immediately to mind. We are, in fact, contesting the pay-out of some 95% of the claim items. Auto & General’s pay-out is based on the replacement value of vastly inferior, substandard items and the incorrect brands, mistakes in terms of the size and models of several electrical appliances (including the chest freezer, the lawn mower etc), the blatant removal of articles from the inventory, assumptions of partnerships and what constitutes business property.

We wish to place on record that we have no confidence in the manner in which this claim has been assessed and how it has been managed by Auto & General. We also fail to understand on such a huge claim why Auto and General insist on using an in house assessor, and not an independent assessor to assist with the assessment and arbitration process. We therefore request that the entire claim be reassessed and that a new assessor, preferably and independent individual, be appointed to undertake this task. We are in the process of obtaining realistic quotations to replace the Spode dinner service, the bone china, the lead crystal glassware, certain antique furniture pieces, the silverware and the Persian carpet. We will also revisit the entire inventory, identify all the items that were summarily removed, and comment on each item, indicating our concerns and listing the actual replacement value of the correct, genuine article. In several instances we have receipts for the original items we owned and have subsequently replaced.

One of our most crucial concerns, which impacts on a major part of this claim, is that we never received any official policy documents / the official insurance contract and that many of the conditions and exclusions supposedly stipulated in this document, which has subsequently resulted in the exclusion of numerous items, were not disclosed by Auto & General or your company’s telesales team at the time that this policy was sold to us or when it came into effect. If the need arises, we will seek legal advice concerning this matter and request the recordings of all telephonic conversations conducted by your telesales team at the time that this policy was sold to us and when came into effect.

I was sold a value added product for chips and dents by auto and general and was told that i should wait for my savings to be high enouth so that I could sort out all the chips and dents on my vehicle
When I called A&G CLAIMS they informed me that my vehicle must be in show room condition and there must only be one scratch or dents approx 15mm long.

I only took this product as I wanted to sort out scratches and or small dents as they occured
knowing that the consultant informed me that I should wait for my savings to accumalate I left the scratches currently and in the interim I have extra dents from parking at shopping malls and now they tell me I can only claim for one dent or scratch. I lodged a complaint in feb and a month later im still waiting for feedback and today i was told again that they must still investigate my call im really irritated by the service

In the afternoon of the 1st February I had a car accident, which I reported the day after to the contact number I have on my documentation that I received from Indwe Risk Services. To my surprise it turned out to be Telesure, an agent/underwriters for Auto & General.
Since I reported my accident, I have had no joy dealing with Telesure.
I have spoken to Grant Williams and Roekaya about 6 times since then, and all I get is more questions about the accident, and no indication of when my car will be fixed.

Now, the reason I have insurance is for peace of mind, knowing that I am covered by insurance should something happen to me. It is sad that hard working people like me sacrifice their hard earned cash to pay for insurance that does not care for their well-being. Several times now I have explained to Grant the urgency of approving my insurance claim. During the accident I lost my left mirror, and it is not safe to drive a vehicle without a mirror on the left as I cannot see vehicles in my blind spot and it is impossible to be accurate when reversing the vehicle, and that on its own is another accident waiting to happen.

I have repeatedly spoken to Grant to ask what is happening with the claim. He continually fails to get back to me. Nobody at the call centre at Indwe Risk Services can tell me what is happening either. It has been 3.5 weeks since I reported my accident. All that Grant is holding on to is the fact that he requested an invoice dated the day of the accident, which I have told him I do not have. This is very frustrating, and stressful. Firstly, it is stressful being in a car accident, and then the only thing that keeps one going is the hope that one is insured, but the very people you count on for assistance, are the ones who do not care.

I pay relatively high premiums, about R1000 every month towards insurance, and I have never missed a payment since about two and half years ago from when I took the insurance, and this was to make sure I am in good standing and that I am taken care of. I have had poor service from the day I reported the accident to Telesure.

I took out insurance with woolworths insurance for my car, and when I took out the cover for my car I was told that I am cover even if I don`t have a drivers Licence though I had a learners Licence, and conditions was as long as I drive with somebody who has a drivers licence I will be covered, of which its what I did.I put through a claim it was decline.then I hand it over to OMBUDSMAN and they altered the insurance`s decisions,
Just when the insurance was about to repair the car they were also told that panelbeater sold a car, and the insurance told me they not going to get involve I must take it up with the panelbeater that they recommended.

please somebody assist me.
If you need to hear the whole story I can be contacted on:[protected]
or email: mojo.[protected]@vodamail.co.za