PSG Claims Handling/Absa Insurance

I would like to start by saying that, historically, I have had generally positive experiences with both PSG and Absa Insurance, and they have assisted me well in the past. Overall, I have been a happy client, which makes this particular experience even more disappointing.

My concern is specifically around the handling of Claim Number: ***.

The claim was registered on 28 April 2026, yet after weeks of delays, vague updates, and contradictory feedback, my claim was ultimately rejected based on assumptions rather than what I believe was a proper technical investigation.

Throughout the process, I repeatedly followed up for updates and was informed that:

--reports were still being reviewed, --a second assessor had allegedly been appointed, --and feedback would be provided “before end of day.”

However:

-- I never met or heard from this “second assessor,” -- no meaningful leak detection testing appears to have been conducted, -- and the assessor himself later clarified via WhatsApp that they were not certain where the leak was located and that the mention of moles was merely a possibility, not a confirmed cause.

Despite this uncer*****y, the claim was still rejected with what appeared to be a definitive conclusion regarding excluded piping.

What troubles me most is the disconnect between:

-- what was communicated informally by the assessor, -- and the cer*****y reflected in the final rejection outcome.

I do not make accusations lightly, but the overall process has unfortunately left me questioning whether the matter was handled objectively and ethically. If there were assumptions made to fit a policy exclusion without sufficient technical verification, that is something I would never condone.

To be clear:

-- I understand that policies contain exclusions, -- and I accept that not every claim will be approved.

My issue is not merely the rejection itself — it is whether a fair and evidence-based assessment actually took place before the decision was made.

My concerns are:

-- No proper leak detection or technical testing appears to have been conducted. -- The assessor’s own comments contradict the cer*****y used to reject the claim. -- A “second assessor” was allegedly appointed, yet I never engaged with or saw evidence of such assessment. -- The process felt predetermined rather than independently investigated. -- Communication was slow, reactive, and lacked transparency throughout.

As a long-standing customer paying premiums in good faith, I expect claims decisions to be based on verified findings and transparent processes, not assumptions or speculation.

I am currently considering escalating the matter further to the National Financial Ombud Scheme.

Supporting correspondence and assessor communication available on request.