DG
Dayalan G
Active since Aug 2020
3
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
3 reviews18 months ago
Edcon ************ service fees + interest charged on my account that was zero balanced 3 months in a row!
A few months back I had cleared the balance on my account and was under the assumption that as my balance was zero, no service fees would be charged on my account (as per the FAQ's on the website below) Is there a fee for Edgars accounts that have a R0 balance? There is no monthly service fee charged to accounts that have a R0 balance. If you have a scenario where this was charged, please contact us so that we can review the account. When my next statement arrived, I noticed that I was still being charged the service fee including interest on the service fee. I proceeded to pay this amout of R34-00 thinking that it could have been an oversight by myself and I underpaid the previous month. In my latest statement however, I found that I am yet again being charged the service fee + interest and proceeded to email Edcon to query. There were 2 responses from what looked like an automated response with a human email signature and in both responses, they eluded to a " Settlement" amount and the onus was on me to request a settlement and only once paid, will my account be a Zero balance. I proceeded to explain to the recipent on the other end and also via the call centre thereafter that your website specifically talks of once your balance is Zero, no service fees are charged on my account and I have now for the 3rd month been charged a service fee + interest for an account with no transactions in the past 6 months or so. A question that I have is why should I request a settlement amount when my statement provides this information and I have paid the balance on 3 occasions which with basics maths should be zero. Furthermore, the edcon website talks about accounts with a zero balance will not be charged a service fee or interest and if my balance is zero, why am I am being charged a fee every month thereafter? Had I not questioned this unscrupuolus practice by Edcon and regurarly looked at my statements, I surely would have a lwayers summons and a negative credit history due to their accountig practises.
0 replies
41 months ago
"Like For Like Replacement" of Geyser is Misleading as it is not Like for Like
Hi, I placed a call out to Outsurance at the beginning of the year due to a geyser in our outbuilding blowing up. Outsurance then sent out a Plumber that inspected the Geyser and relative damage and thereafter once the Claim was approved, conducted the necessary repairs caused to sealing boards and replacement of the geyser. The plumber who installed the replacement geyser notified my mum who is a pensioner and relies on the passive income generated by letting out of the outbuilding that they would replace the geyser with a 50L high pressure geyser as the old geyser was a copper “gravity geyser” for which is not made anymore. My mum at the time agreed to this and has regretted her decision ever since. She has since lost 2 tenants in that outbuilding due to the following reasons: 1) The new geyser is only sufficient for 1 adult to shower as the water is cold thereafter. 2) Due to this, the electricity usage within the outbuilding has skyrocketed as the geyser is constantly cold and must now draw additional current to reheat after every shower. In light of the above, I placed a call out to Outsurance on the 28/07/2022 to come and inspect their Geyser as the tenants at the property (2 adults and a baby) have also complained about the geyser not being sufficient for them to have a hot shower in the morning. Outsurance then sent out a plumber that inspected the geyser and confirmed that the geyser was connected accurately however, due to it being a 50L high pressure geyser at least 20L of that is displaced before you can even shower i.e. whilst the hot water run. through the tap. This to me was absolutely ridiculous as he insisted that Outsurance had approved a “Like for Like” Replacement i.e. a 50L geyser for a 50L geyser. I then contacted Outsurance various times thereafter and appealed to them that this “like for like” replacement was not correct and the new geyser is clearly not fit for purpose i.e. I do not see the point of a geyser that does not provide the necessary hot water as the previous older geyser did. After several calls and call outs, the report by the various plumbers was the same, “the new geyser is a high pressure geyser and although heats and displaces water a lot quicker, it does not have the capacity for 2 adults due to the pressure water is displaced. I then contacted Outsurance and asked, If my old geyser, was a 50 L Gravity Copper geyser that although older WAS FIT FOR PURPOSE, how is it that you assume a 50L high pressure geyser was a like for like replacement? Barring the Litre holding capacity of the geyser, everything else about it is completely different e.g. A copper geyser would retain more heat hence keeping the water hotter for longer, I even went as far as to ask the lady if: I had a 2L diesel automobile that was Insured with Outsurance, and I was in an accident and that car was written off, would Outsurance replace my car with a 2L Petrol automobile because they don’t make my older cars model anymore or due to some new efficiencies built into the petrol model? Absolutely appalling! I then progressed to asking Outsurance to remove the new geyser and provide me with a cost difference for installing one that would be fit for purpose as was the original geyser in that outbuilding and; I would pick up this cost difference in an attempt to resolve this issue. Outsurance then refused this outright. I am now unsure as to what means I have left to resolve this issue as my mum s constantly being reminded by the tenants of the geyser problem and spiralling electricity bill from the newly installed geyser. Could Outsurance please rectify this issue as this income from the outbuilding provides a passive income for my mum.
192 replies
69 months ago
Incompotenet Claims Investigation and Settlement
Hi, Around 2 months ago I lodged a claim for damages caused to my bedroom carpet/wall as a result of water damages. The Consultant contacted me and leak detector specialist was sent in as I did not know the cause of the water Leak. The first leak detector was convinced the leak was as a result of maintenance to my Shower cubicle. He conducted a Green Dye Test and which to my understanding if the fault was as he suggested i.e. water seeping via my shower floor into the bedroom, then I would have seen green dye stained water seep through in the bedroom. We waited an hour and this did not happen BUT; it was still assessed as a faulty shower floor. I wrote to my Claims Administrator Contesting this as Below: With regards to my dispute, as explained to your colleague earlier, when the Leak Detection Specialist came to my home, he conducted two tests. This was to find the source of the water which was leaking into the adjacent bedroom. The first of the tests was to fill my shower cubicle to the brim with dye stained water including the toilet pan. The dye used in the shower cubicle was a dark green dye which was clearly visible. To my understanding this test was conducted in order to ascertain if the leak did in fact emanate from the shower cubicle and if positive, the water seeping through into the bedroom would be dark green. The Leak Detection specialist and I waited an hour for the dye stained water to seep through which never happened, however clear water was detected in the bedroom. He confirmed that the clear water was not there when he started his tests. He eventually said that the dye stained water is probably building up and will appear a day or so later. This I think is a bit ludicrous as its just a brick wall separating the 2 rooms and if so, how do you explain the clear water building up as per his tests and not the dye stained water. I then asked him to include this in his report which he did but his findings weren't conclusive in line with his tests i.e. if you conducted a dye test and failed, how did you draw the conclusion that the shower cubicle was the fault? After an hour of waiting for the dye stained water to appear, the Leak detection specialist decided on conducting a gas test, I think it was Nitrous Oxide or something of the sort. I'm not too sure on the science of this but he passed gas through my shower head and used some sort of device to detect if gas was leaking from within the walls. He assured me that it wasn't as the machine did not beep. With this in mind, how was the conclusion that the water seep was caused by a hole in my shower cubicle when the shower cubicle dye test failed? If you could please look into this and share your thoughts I'd greatly appreciate. The Claims Admin then sent out a second Leak Detector or Assessed the Fault and Submitted his Report (Please see Leak Assessment Report 2). This Report contradicted and dismissed the first report as nonsense because if it was the faulty Shower Floor, then How was there no Dye seeping into the bedroom at the time of testing? I then contracted a Private Plumber who pointed out to me the Damp in my ceiling for where the geyser is placed and the possibility that water was in fact leaking on the ceiling boards and seeping down the walls. I contacted outsurance with this new info and it would seem that outsurance was all to keen to close my first claim for damages because it wasn't leaking pipes. I was furious as I did not draw the conclusion of a leak anywhere, this was what the leak detectors set out to prove (or disprove) My claim was for damages to my Property and not playing round of cause and effect with them. I insisted they keep my claim open as I am not interested in their Claim Closing policy in order to open another claim just for me to go through another cycle of assessments. Its now over 2 months and Ive no resolution in the matter! Please see Leak Detection Report 1: Leak Report 1: On site we met the client who indicated that his bedroom carpet is getting wet and suspects there to be a burst pipe in the adjacent bathroom. We conducted audio testing on the visible riser points and noted no audio. We conducted a tracer gas test on the property and noted no signs of gas surfacing on the property. We conducted a pressure test on the property and noted no drop on the gauge. We conducted a green dye test on the shower base and noted green dye to be surfacing on the bathroom floor We conducted a green dye test on the shower base and noted green dye to be surfacing on the bathroom and clear water to be pushing through the adjacent wall. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the shower enclosure be stripped, waterproofed and retiled to prevent further ingress of water when shower is in use. Leak Assessment Report2 To whom it may concern, On the 22/07/2020 Zipp Plumbers went to [Address] to carry out a leak detection as requested by Outsurance. When arriving on site they plumbers carried out an inspection of all taps and toilets and confirmed nothing to be leaking. We then carried out a pressure test and confirmed no water pipes to be leaking and the water meter was still at the time of testing. When inspecting the waste pipes where the water has collected they noted that the basin waste is causing the damages. To rectify this problem a 45’ pvc bend needs to be installed on the waste pipe for the basin and the shower as currently it is discharging onto the concrete and causing dampness on the wall which is damaging the carpets in the bedroom.
106 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
0 (0%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
0 (0%)
1 Star
3 (100%)