It occurred to me the other day that a lot of my working life is spent essentially suggesting to companies that they pay back the money they owe their customers.
The customers have pleaded or demanded a refund or some form of recourse for weeks or even months before they send me a “you’re my last hope” e-mail.
Then I get hold of my contact at the company in question, asking for a response, and suggesting that if the customer’s version of events is correct, a refund would be justified.
(The journalist’s version of screeching “Pay back the money!”)
It would be lovely if all consumers could get justice on their own, but sadly, for a multitude of reasons, it just doesn’t work that way.
So often I have to tell readers that I can’t take on their cases because they don’t have documentary evidence: receipts, photos or written proof of an offer or undertaking made by a company representative.
So it follows, then, that if companies can’t prove what they’re contending, the customer should get the benefit of the doubt.
In March, long time Altech Autopage (AA) subscriber Michelle Geddie got a ridiculously high cellphone bill – more than R2000, and by April it was more than R8000.
Her usual bill was between R1000 and R1200.
AA told her that in 2001 she’d activated a “twin call” facility, in person, in Fordsburg, a town she’d never visited.
She was given the number, and when she dialled it, a woman she didn’t know answered, and on another occasion, the call went straight to her (Geddie’s) voicemail.
“My itemised billing revealed several expensive calls made to telephone numbers of people I don’t know, and at times I couldn’t possibly have made them,” she said.
AA investigated the case for months before telling Geddie the case was closed, and that they were not “at liberty” to tell her what their findings were.
And when she refused to pay, her line was suspended.
Needing her phone for work, she paid, reluctantly.
I took up the case with AA’s Jeffery Errayah, stating that since Geddie was held responsible for the unusually high bills, thanks to her unknown “twin”, it followed that AA had to have documentary proof, plus copies of ID, utility bill and the like, proving that she had indeed presented herself in Fordsburg back in 2001 to apply for this facility.
“If AA cannot do so, then it has no legal right to hold her responsible or the fraudulent activity on her SIM,” I suggested.
Responding, Errayah said Geddie “did in fact” request twin call – an additional dual SIM, both linked to the same account – in 2001, but not in Fordsburg; in AA’s Musgrave, Durban store.
(This option is offered by MTN and Vodacom, most people using the twin SIM for other devices such as a tablet).
Errayah said the service was used from 2001 to 2003, and remained unused until the “high bill” of 2015.
“We suspect but cannot confirm that the SIM was lying unused for 12 years and was picked up, inserted into a device due to the SIM still being active and this was used to incur data charges.”
Interestingly, none of this information had been made available to their customer.
But, because the 2001 twin call authorisation couldn't be found, Errayah said, “we will be crediting and refunding the customer for the usage of this new bill”.
The amount: R10 576.
Bottom line: demand that companies provide proof of any claims made of you.
Contact Wendy:
E-mail: consumer@knowler.co.za
Twitter: @wendyknowler
Leaving firms to their own devices on claims bad call
The customers have pleaded or demanded a refund or some form of recourse for weeks or even months before they send me a “you’re my last hope” e-mail.
Then I get hold of my contact at the company in question, asking for a response, and suggesting that if the customer’s version of events is correct, a refund would be justified.
(The journalist’s version of screeching “Pay back the money!”)
It would be lovely if all consumers could get justice on their own, but sadly, for a multitude of reasons, it just doesn’t work that way.
So often I have to tell readers that I can’t take on their cases because they don’t have documentary evidence: receipts, photos or written proof of an offer or undertaking made by a company representative.
So it follows, then, that if companies can’t prove what they’re contending, the customer should get the benefit of the doubt.
In March, long time Altech Autopage (AA) subscriber Michelle Geddie got a ridiculously high cellphone bill – more than R2000, and by April it was more than R8000.
Her usual bill was between R1000 and R1200.
AA told her that in 2001 she’d activated a “twin call” facility, in person, in Fordsburg, a town she’d never visited.
She was given the number, and when she dialled it, a woman she didn’t know answered, and on another occasion, the call went straight to her (Geddie’s) voicemail.
“My itemised billing revealed several expensive calls made to telephone numbers of people I don’t know, and at times I couldn’t possibly have made them,” she said.
AA investigated the case for months before telling Geddie the case was closed, and that they were not “at liberty” to tell her what their findings were.
And when she refused to pay, her line was suspended.
Needing her phone for work, she paid, reluctantly.
I took up the case with AA’s Jeffery Errayah, stating that since Geddie was held responsible for the unusually high bills, thanks to her unknown “twin”, it followed that AA had to have documentary proof, plus copies of ID, utility bill and the like, proving that she had indeed presented herself in Fordsburg back in 2001 to apply for this facility.
“If AA cannot do so, then it has no legal right to hold her responsible or the fraudulent activity on her SIM,” I suggested.
Responding, Errayah said Geddie “did in fact” request twin call – an additional dual SIM, both linked to the same account – in 2001, but not in Fordsburg; in AA’s Musgrave, Durban store.
(This option is offered by MTN and Vodacom, most people using the twin SIM for other devices such as a tablet).
Errayah said the service was used from 2001 to 2003, and remained unused until the “high bill” of 2015.
“We suspect but cannot confirm that the SIM was lying unused for 12 years and was picked up, inserted into a device due to the SIM still being active and this was used to incur data charges.”
Interestingly, none of this information had been made available to their customer.
But, because the 2001 twin call authorisation couldn't be found, Errayah said, “we will be crediting and refunding the customer for the usage of this new bill”.
The amount: R10 576.
Bottom line: demand that companies provide proof of any claims made of you.
Contact Wendy:
E-mail: consumer@knowler.co.za
Twitter: @wendyknowler
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 Now
Latest Videos