Netassess to forcefully fail my claim with unrelated excuses

Continuation of my statement:

My vehicle was taken for inspection by the insurer, and the findings were reported as follows:

“Report: Noise from the rear diff. We opened the diff and found that the crown wheel and pinion gears are broken on a few teeth. The spider gears also broke on certain teeth. If the pothole or whatever the client went through is big enough it can cause the wheels to spin and grip abnormally causing damage to diff gears. We can not say for sure that this is the case as we do not know the extent of the accident. See photos attached.”

Unquote

This report accurately reflects what occurred after I hit the pothole.

The report was issued on Wednesday, and communication was received from Thando Renew-It. However, when I followed up with the inspection company this morning regarding my vehicle, I was informed that Insurance assuming Netassess had contacted them again this morning and spoken to the manager—despite the report already having been finalized on Wednesday. This raised serious concern.

After this call, new issues were introduced(not from inspection company as I do not get direct communication from them), specifically regarding the vehicle’s mileage and service history, which were not previously raised on the inspection report.

Ms. Litsa from Netassess has since introduced unrelated reasons, which I believe are unjustified. She is the same individual I met when my vehicle was taken in for inspection. She arrived late and appeared unprepared, which immediately raised concerns regarding the handling of my claim.

She stated that the damage is due to wear and tear, citing the vehicle’s age and mileage. She also mentioned an oil leak, which is unrelated to the differential failure. Furthermore, she claimed that the vehicle has not been properly maintained.

My vehicle has undergone two separate diagnostic assessments, both of which confirmed differential failure. The vehicle is otherwise in good condition and had no prior issues before the pothole incident. The only damage sustained is the differential damage caused by hitting the pothole.

The vehicle’s mileage and service history are not relevant to the damage caused by the pothole and should not be used to justify rejecting the claim. Based on my discussions with independent parties, including BMW, it has been confirmed that it is highly possible for a pothole impact to cause differential damage. This strongly supports the conclusion that the damage resulted from the pothole and not from poor maintenance or wear and tear.

This honestly puts the name of Momentum in a bad nam.