Hyundai Hcn : Happy ending to insurance bungle

'Dear Wendy, I always enjoy your page in The Star, but can we move on from the R699ers please? Best, Anne C."

I understand Anne's frustration, and told her so, but I pointed out that as the biggest financial fiasco to hit South Africa's motor industry, the collapse of Satinsky "Drive a new car from R699 per month" saga is a major, still unfolding story.

So - a quick summary of some of the latest 699 developments before I move on to other things.

Yet another 699-er has come forward with written proof that the amount she submitted to Satinsky as her monthly expenses was reduced to a lower figure on the bank application form, to create a false impression of her affordability. Hyundai came out with a radio advert about the R699pm deal being "too good to be true", which many 699-ers took offence to. Claims that some of the cars sold by Satinsky were not in fact new continue to emerge.

And the high court in the Eastern Cape has yet to say whether the application to have the issue certified as a class action was successful or not.

About that advert, Hyundai said it had "no intention of being frivolous about and making fun of people who took part in the Satinsky R699-per-month car deals", but wanted to highlight that its dealerships "adhere to all National Credit Regulator rules and do not try and mislead our customers in any way".

Meanwhile, Satinsky chief executive Albert Venter, who has refused to respond to media queries for weeks, is suing Cornelia Nel of Pretoria regarding what he claims are defamatory comments about him on the Facebook group "I've been done in by 'New Car From R699 per month'".

In papers filed in the Pretoria High Court, Venter demands R1 million in damages with respect to Nel's "false, wrongful and defamatory comments".

And now for something completely different.

It's the story of an elderly woman with extraordinary patience and resignation and her persistent, less patient son's fight with a major corporation on her behalf. But ultimately it's about miscommunication and bureaucratic bungling.

I first heard from writer Rian Malan about the case of his mother, Dorothea "Vi" Malan, 90, towards the end of last year.

A resident at an old age home in Parys, Free State, she'd fallen and broken her femur a few months earlier and, knowing that she'd been paying premiums in respect of an AIG accident policy since 1996, she asked her son to file a claim on her behalf.

"I did so, around late July, and remember being asked to file certain documents, including an X-ray report. During one of those calls, my eye fell on a clause that stated that the policy lapsed when the insured reached the age of 85.

"I asked them why they were wasting my time on the phone, gathering information for a claim which would be rejected anyway."

In September he sent an e-mail to an AIG employee, the first of many, asking why AIG had continued to deduct the premium from his mother's bank account, when the cover had become invalid on her 85th birthday, in March 2009.

"Please refund all premiums paid between then and the present, with interest," he wrote. "And please note that I am cancelling the debit order in your favour with immediate effect." When he got no response, he sent another |e-mail, and then another.

Finally, in December, Malan got a response, via e-mail, which went exactly like this:

"The premiums deducted after the client turned 85yrs will be credited back to the same account we processed the amount of R1 979.98, this amount will show into the account after 10-14 working days. We apologise for the inconvenience we caused."

Malan wrote back to Consumer Watch saying not to worry, the money is being refunded. End of story. Or so he thought.

The money didn't appear in Vi Malan's bank account, so her son began another round of e-mails in January. Again no response.

By April, Malan had totally lost patience. "You promised, in writing, to pay the money back to my aged mother in 10 to 14 days. You didn't. You lied. And when I wrote to protest, you ignored me."

It took another whole month for AIG to respond. Malan got an e-mail stating that his mother had indeed been refunded that almost-R2 000 in December and they provided the account number - an Absa account number.

Malan wrote back stating that his mother didn't bank with Absa, and urged them to pay the money into her FNB bank account, the same one from which they had taken the premiums, since 1996. That was in May. When that money still hadn't appeared in his mother's bank account by last month, Malan contacted Consumer Watch again.

I took up the case with AIG, at which point it became curious.

The company's communications manager, Wendy van den Heever, said Malan's policy did not expire when she turned 85.

"An endorsement extending cover was issued during 2007 and therefore Mrs Malan was validly covered under the policy.

"Documents in support of the claim were requested in order to process the claim in September 2013. Subsequently Mr Malan requested the policy to be cancelled and the premiums dating back to 2009 be refunded on his understanding that there was no valid cover when Mrs Malan reached age 85. The policy was subsequently cancelled during October 2013."

But as Malan says: "I put my (mis)understanding in writing and continued to write for months, and at no point did anyone bother to correct me.

"And I know nothing at all about an endorsement that extended cover," he said.

But there was a happy ending.

"Notwithstanding the request of Mr Malan and despite having cancelled the policy, we duly assessed the impact of the cancellation versus the settlement of the claim," Van den Heever said.

"Our assessment clearly indicated that there was materially greater benefit to Mrs Malan in settling the claim. We have now settled the claim in the amount of R5 000 plus interest of R379.14 and transferred the sum to Mrs Malan's account."

Pressed on the question of that endorsement, Van den Heever said that in 2007, AIG reviewed its Broken Bones product offering and decided to remove the age limit exclusion of 85 years.

"The endorsements were furnished to all policyholders and Mrs Malan would certainly have been included."

As for what appears to have been a case of gross miscommunication, Van den Heever said: "We have noted that the system under which the endorsement was issued did not feed through to the system from which the claims are initially validated."

Van den Heever apologised and said the problem should have been identified earlier, adding that AIG was reviewing all ancillary claims processes and customer-related touch points.

So, Malan's long battle for justice for his mother was not in vain, having exposed a serious lapse in the insurer's processes.

Source: The Star