

Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance
Based on recent customer reviews, the Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance is drawing predominantly negative feedback from complainants who feel the office favours insurers over consumers. A recurring theme is perceived bias, with customers consistently mentioning prolonged case timelines, dismissed appeals, and provisional recommendations that mirror insurer positions. Several complainants describe feeling unheard by adjudicators and frustrated by limited opportunities to submit further evidence. A small minority of comments reflect positively on professionalism, but the overwhelming sentiment points to dissatisfaction with the perceived fairness, responsiveness, and effectiveness of the dispute resolution process.
NPS Score
-100
Recommended: Unlikely
Sep '25 - Aug '26
Based on recent customer reviews, the Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance is drawing predominantly negative feedback from complainants who feel the office favours insurers over consumers. A recurring theme is perceived bias, with customers consistently mentioning prolonged case timelines, dismissed appeals, and provisional recommendations that mirror insurer positions. Several complainants describe feeling unheard by adjudicators and frustrated by limited opportunities to submit further evidence. A small minority of comments reflect positively on professionalism, but the overwhelming sentiment points to dissatisfaction with the perceived fairness, responsiveness, and effectiveness of the dispute resolution process.
Hellopeter has tracked Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance across 404 reviews. Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance hasn't collected enough recent reviews — at least 10 in the last 12 months are needed — to calculate a TrustIndex score. Have you used Ombudsman for Short Term Insurance? Write a review to help others decide.
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Share Your Experience1 reviews | Active since May 2022
The FAIS Ombud appears to be compromised in its handling of disputes, demonstrating a concerning level of bias that undermines both consumers and financial service providers. Its conduct reflects inefficiency and raises serious questions about its integrity and effectiveness.
1 reviews | Active since May 2022
The FAIS Ombud appears to be compromised in its handling of disputes, demonstrating a concerning level of bias that undermines both consumers and financial service providers. Its conduct reflects inefficiency and raises serious questions about its integrity and effectiveness.
1 reviews | Active since Jul 2015
I am raising serious concern regarding a life policy claim that was declined by King Price Insurance on the basis of an alleged “pre-existing condition.” What is particularly troubling is that this condition was never identified, queried, or raised at the inception of the policy. The policy was underwritten, accepted, and premiums were collected without issue. Only at claims stage was this “pre-existing condition” suddenly re**** upon to decline the claim. This raises a fundamental question: If the condition was material enough to decline a claim, why was it not identified and addressed during underwriting? The matter has now been sitting with the Ombudsman for Short-Term Insurance for close to three years with no meaningful progress or resolution. This delay is unreasonable and deeply concerning, especially given the financial and emotional impact involved in a life claim. At this point, it feels as though the process is being unnecessarily prolonged, leaving us without recourse while the insurer avoids accountability. We are now seeking: • A clear and final determination from the Ombudsman • A proper review of the underwriting process followed by King Price • Accountability for the prolonged delay in resolving this matter This is not a complex case. It is a straightforward issue of whether an insurer can accept a policy, collect premiums, and only later rely on information they failed to properly assess at inception. I would appreciate urgent intervention and transparency from both King Price Insurance and the Ombudsman on this matter.
1 reviews | Active since Jul 2015
I am raising serious concern regarding a life policy claim that was declined by King Price Insurance on the basis of an alleged “pre-existing condition.” What is particularly troubling is that this condition was never identified, queried, or raised at the inception of the policy. The policy was underwritten, accepted, and premiums were collected without issue. Only at claims stage was this “pre-existing condition” suddenly re**** upon to decline the claim. This raises a fundamental question: If the condition was material enough to decline a claim, why was it not identified and addressed during underwriting? The matter has now been sitting with the Ombudsman for Short-Term Insurance for close to three years with no meaningful progress or resolution. This delay is unreasonable and deeply concerning, especially given the financial and emotional impact involved in a life claim. At this point, it feels as though the process is being unnecessarily prolonged, leaving us without recourse while the insurer avoids accountability. We are now seeking: • A clear and final determination from the Ombudsman • A proper review of the underwriting process followed by King Price • Accountability for the prolonged delay in resolving this matter This is not a complex case. It is a straightforward issue of whether an insurer can accept a policy, collect premiums, and only later rely on information they failed to properly assess at inception. I would appreciate urgent intervention and transparency from both King Price Insurance and the Ombudsman on this matter.
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2022
Good morning i have problems for HCV insurance the client of HCV client bumped my car now HCV insurance say they can’t fix my car because they say is my fault,they client truck fail to brake at robot
1 reviews | Active since Aug 2025
I failed with Standard Bank Insurance so I escalated to the Ombudsman which didn't make a difference. I even appealed the outcome of the Ombudsman of which was totally ignored. All I asked for was an alternate assessor to re-asses damages which was not entertained. People have degrees on paper but nothing upstairs.
1 reviews | Active since Aug 2025
I failed with Standard Bank Insurance so I escalated to the Ombudsman which didn't make a difference. I even appealed the outcome of the Ombudsman of which was totally ignored. All I asked for was an alternate assessor to re-asses damages which was not entertained. People have degrees on paper but nothing upstairs.
1 reviews | Active since Mar 2015
AFTER THE CANCELATION OF MY POLICY WITH BUDGET INSURANCE POLICY NO: ***, I WAS DEBITED ON THE 22ND AUGUST BY BUDGET AND PROMISED THAT THE MONEY WILL BE PAID BACK WITHIN 7 DAYS. AS THEY WERE LATE TO STIP THE TRANSACTION. I DID ADVISE THE CONSULTANT ODETTE THAT MY NEW INSURANCE WILL DEBIT MY ACCOUNT LAST DAY OF THE MONTH. TODAY IS THE 1ST SEPTEMBER AND FUNDS HAVENT BEEN REVERSED AND THEREFORE I'LL HAVE A BOUNCING DEBIT ORDER. WHICH MEANS MY CAR IS NOT COVERED, SHOULD ANYTHING HAPPEN. ALL THANKS TO BUDGET INSURANCE
1 reviews | Active since Mar 2015
AFTER THE CANCELATION OF MY POLICY WITH BUDGET INSURANCE POLICY NO: ***, I WAS DEBITED ON THE 22ND AUGUST BY BUDGET AND PROMISED THAT THE MONEY WILL BE PAID BACK WITHIN 7 DAYS. AS THEY WERE LATE TO STIP THE TRANSACTION. I DID ADVISE THE CONSULTANT ODETTE THAT MY NEW INSURANCE WILL DEBIT MY ACCOUNT LAST DAY OF THE MONTH. TODAY IS THE 1ST SEPTEMBER AND FUNDS HAVENT BEEN REVERSED AND THEREFORE I'LL HAVE A BOUNCING DEBIT ORDER. WHICH MEANS MY CAR IS NOT COVERED, SHOULD ANYTHING HAPPEN. ALL THANKS TO BUDGET INSURANCE