Crossed call…

Finweek English Edition - - Letters - CLIVE BERLYN

Sand­ton I WRITE IN CON­NEC­TION with an is­sue that’s arisen with Cell C and its tele­sales team. Cell C, via its tele­sales, ini­ti­ated a stop or­der (debit or­der) on one of my com­pany ac­counts with­out any spe­cific or im­plied author­ity or any re­gard for FICA re­quire­ments. It was an in­di­vid­ual who was not an em­ployee, of­fi­cer or mem­ber of the CC.

As we have a num­ber of con­tracts with Cell C it was picked up af­ter R20 000 had been charged to the bank ac­count. I duly no­ti­fied Cell C’s cus­tomer re­la­tions of the mat­ter, es­tab­lished who had orig­i­nated the stop or­der and laid a charge of fraud with the Mthatha po­lice. That was as per Cell C’s in­struc­tions and that once they had that they would re­fund the amount.

Cell C then re­sponded that it wasn’t li­able to re­fund us, as the bank ac­count when checked was a valid ac­count and there­fore not its mis­take. Re­peated dis­cus­sions re­gard­ing the gov­er­nance pro­ce­dure that com­pany ac­counts re­quire two sig­na­tures on stop/debit or­ders and res­o­lu­tions au­tho­ris­ing sig­na­to­ries, etc, were ig­nored. That in my opin­ion ig­nores any gov­er­nance is­sues, com­pany pro­ce­dures, FICA re­quire­ments, etc. Cell C has fur­ther de­nied that it’s its re­spon­si­bil­ity to ver­ify that the per­son ac­cept­ing its of­fer­ing has author­ity to con­tract on the bank ac­count. As long as Cell C has ver­i­fied the bank ac­count is a valid ac­count, you’re ac­cepted.

I’ve ar­ranged for sum­mons to be is­sued against Cell C on the ba­sis that, as the bank ac­count is in Mthatha, that’s where ju­ris­dic­tion is – af­ter all, their call cen­tre could be in In­dia.

Mthatha

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.