TELEMARKERTERS have found a new way to circumvent the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
Before the CPA came into effect, telemarkerters could call prospective clients at any time and use all the marketing tactics to sign up consumers. The CPA placed limitations and restrictions on companies regarding their conduct and approach to consumers.
Section 40 of the CPA says, among other stipulations, a supplier or an agent must not use unfair tactics, mislead consumers or use any other similar conduct.
But Cell C still uses misleading tactics that induce consumers to enter into contracts with it.
Take the case of Fabian Watson, 29, an area manager at Vector Trade Solutions, who was hoodwinked into signing a second contract under the guise that he was upgrading his contract.
Watson says Cell C's agent called him in January this year offering him - a "valued customer" - a Blackberry cellphone. He was told the offer would not affect the current package he had with Cell C.
For this he would pay only R299, the agent told him. The offer entitled him to a Blackerry, 500 megabytes, and 100 SMSs a month, which he found irresistible. He received the phone but not the megabytes and SMs package promised.
"Though I paid the agreed amount, eight months later I was slapped with a R10000 bill and blacklisted as a bad payer," Watson says.
When he received the R10000 bill, on investigation Watson discovered that someone did a sim swap on a second cellphone number he was unaware of and abused the internet service without his knowledge and authorisation, he says.
"At this stage Cell C told me I had signed a new contract and had an additional cell number that I didn't have or use," Watson says.
For the last two months he has spoken to 18 people trying to resolve the problem, without any luck, he says. All the people he spoke to made empty promises.
Watson demanded to listen to the audio recording in which he allegedly entered into a second contract with Cell C to dispute its facts.
"Nowhere (in the conversation recorded about his contract) does its agent say I'm entering into a new contract or confirm that I had entered into a new contract."
Instead of writing off the debt Cell C still wanted Watson to pay 30% of this debt, he says. To date it has given him only three months' worth of megabytes and SMSs, though he has been paying his R299 fee for the package for the past eight months.
"This is pathetic and really poor client service," Watson says.
"Why must I pay R10 000 for (their) mistake?"
Watson approached Consumer Line for help. A day after our intervention Watson confirmed that Cell C credited his account with R8612 and removed the adverse information from the credit bureau.
Lucky Mpofu, Cell C's manager of the executive client liaison desk, has apologised for the inconvenience and frustration caused to Watson.
For more stories like this one, be sure to buy the Sowetan newspaper from Mondays to Fridays
Fake cellphone deal cleared - unfair Cell C contract pained client
TELEMARKERTERS have found a new way to circumvent the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
Before the CPA came into effect, telemarkerters could call prospective clients at any time and use all the marketing tactics to sign up consumers. The CPA placed limitations and restrictions on companies regarding their conduct and approach to consumers.
Section 40 of the CPA says, among other stipulations, a supplier or an agent must not use unfair tactics, mislead consumers or use any other similar conduct.
But Cell C still uses misleading tactics that induce consumers to enter into contracts with it.
Take the case of Fabian Watson, 29, an area manager at Vector Trade Solutions, who was hoodwinked into signing a second contract under the guise that he was upgrading his contract.
Watson says Cell C's agent called him in January this year offering him - a "valued customer" - a Blackberry cellphone. He was told the offer would not affect the current package he had with Cell C.
For this he would pay only R299, the agent told him. The offer entitled him to a Blackerry, 500 megabytes, and 100 SMSs a month, which he found irresistible. He received the phone but not the megabytes and SMs package promised.
"Though I paid the agreed amount, eight months later I was slapped with a R10000 bill and blacklisted as a bad payer," Watson says.
When he received the R10000 bill, on investigation Watson discovered that someone did a sim swap on a second cellphone number he was unaware of and abused the internet service without his knowledge and authorisation, he says.
"At this stage Cell C told me I had signed a new contract and had an additional cell number that I didn't have or use," Watson says.
For the last two months he has spoken to 18 people trying to resolve the problem, without any luck, he says. All the people he spoke to made empty promises.
Watson demanded to listen to the audio recording in which he allegedly entered into a second contract with Cell C to dispute its facts.
"Nowhere (in the conversation recorded about his contract) does its agent say I'm entering into a new contract or confirm that I had entered into a new contract."
Instead of writing off the debt Cell C still wanted Watson to pay 30% of this debt, he says. To date it has given him only three months' worth of megabytes and SMSs, though he has been paying his R299 fee for the package for the past eight months.
"This is pathetic and really poor client service," Watson says.
"Why must I pay R10 000 for (their) mistake?"
Watson approached Consumer Line for help. A day after our intervention Watson confirmed that Cell C credited his account with R8612 and removed the adverse information from the credit bureau.
Lucky Mpofu, Cell C's manager of the executive client liaison desk, has apologised for the inconvenience and frustration caused to Watson.
For more stories like this one, be sure to buy the Sowetan newspaper from Mondays to Fridays
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos