Does this Wi-Fi stand for wilful finagling?
Similarities in Vodacom contract complaints raise serious questions
THERE is a word I love in our consumer law: unconscionable. I didn’t always feel this way; in fact I thought it was very out of place in a piece of legislation that demanded suppliers talk to consumers in plain language. The irony.
But I’ve grown very used to it, as you do with repeated use. It means morally unacceptable, unethical, amoral, unprincipled, indefensible, unscrupulous, underhanded. You get the picture.
As you would expect, unconscionable conduct is forbidden in the Consumer Protection Act. So any coercion, physical force, undue pressure, influence, harassment, or unfair tactics in the marketing, supply or negotiation of goods and services, or collection of payment, is a no-no.
It’s also unconscionable for a supplier to take advantage of a consumer’s inability to protect their own interests owing to physical or mental disability, illiteracy, ignorance, or inability to understand the language of an agreement. The section of the act dealing with the right to fair and honest dealing also outlaws false, misleading or deceptive representations in the marketing of goods or services.
The tricky part when faced with consumer complaints is trying to work out whether a supplier has deliberately misled a consumer or whether the so-called misrepresentation is the result of sheer incompetence. Sadly, both abound in the business world and it’s impossible sometimes to distinguish.
It’s been hard, in the case of readers who complained to me this month, not to suspect they’d been purposefully conned due to their age.
Ron Goulson, in his 70s, and Michael Giquel, 67, were duped into accepting a “free” Wi-Fi router, although not for long. As soon as they were billed, they cried foul. It just didn’t get them anywhere. So they came to me. Said Giquel, from Elsies River in Cape Town: “I have a daughter overseas so I decided to take out a contract in March for a tablet at R159 per month, so that my wife could Skype our grandchildren. I later received a call from a Vomany dacom representative, asking if I would like a Wi-Fi router.
“I explicitly remember asking on more than one occasion during our conversation what it would cost and she replied each time that it was free. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing and stated so, but she replied that because Vodacom would like to secure their customers . . . they were offering it free and that I would be paying R20 less on my contract. I now realise how naive I was.”
The router was delivered in May. When he received his first statement, “indicating that I was actually paying for the router”, he contacted Vodacom. But despite promises to investigate, nothing came of it — even though the network eventually collected the router from him.
Goulson, of Gauteng, was caught in the same trap. He was told there would be no additional cost to him for the router, but that an extra year would be added to his existing two-year contract.
“My wife and I are both . . . on a fixed income and we finally agreed,” said Goulson. His next invoice revealed an extra R119 charge for data on the router.
For two months, Goulson called and e-mailed Vodacom repeatedly, to no avail. In August he visited Vodaworld in Midrand and was told they did not know where the telesales offices were. “We admit we were stupid to accept something over the phone without a proper contract . . . we were not informed of the additional data package and the only paper we signed was the delivery note.”
After I queried the issue with Vodacom, Goulson was contacted and the recording of the sales pitch located. The contract was quickly cancelled and a refund processed.
“We thank you for intervening on our behalf, the Sunday Times has claimed another reader . . . you have saved us a great deal of heartache and sleepless nights,” said Goulson. BILL: Michael Giquel was billed for his ’free’ Vodacom router
Vodacom spokesman Byron Kennedy said: “What was not made clear to Mr Goulson was that while the router is free, he would be paying a subscription for the additional line and his previous line would not be cancelled.
“The line has since been cancelled and the customer has been credited with an amount of R476.”
He said Giquel’s case was similar in that the sales agent “didn’t clarify” that he would be paying for an additional contract.
Another victim of an apparent lack of clarity is retired Durban advocate Suriya Parmanand.
“Vodacom’s agent misled me by quoting me the incorrect monthly premium for a data bundle they were marketing,” Parmanand said.
“Vodacom had conceded telephonically that this was a misrepresentation and the contract is invalid. I was also told I did not need a modem to use the bundle. The upshot of this was that I gave away Vodacom’s modem and the data bundle then became unusable.”
Vodacom initially offered him a reduced rate but he refused on the basis that the contract was invalid. The network eventually relented in June, agreeing to cancel the contract and refund him. But it didn’t.
“I have threatened Vodacom with legal action repeatedly. Still they drag their heels,” he wrote.
Parmanand was refunded this week.
Kennedy said that while the correct contract (which came with a free Wi-Fi) had been offered to Parmanand, the customer had been quoted an incorrect total for the additional line.
All elderly customers, living in different cities, all misled in a similar way. Just coincidence?
“To prevent similar incidences from occurring in the future, Vodacom has taken a number of preventative measures, which include penalising the trade partners in line with our agreements should similar transgression be found,” Kennedy said.
Amazing. Three customers sold new contracts without full, or correct, disclosure.
And seems they’re not alone. Giquel said there were letters published in his local community newspaper this month from three more consumers complaining about being misled by Vodacom in a similar way.
Unconscionable conduct? Deception? Or just sales agent bungling? A comprehensive audit of the call centre would determine that. If Vodacom is really serious about protecting its customers, especially those with greying heads, it would do just that.
Tune in to Power 98.7’s “Power Breakfast” (DStv audio channel 889) at 8.50am to hear more from Megan
The Power Report is taking a break. It will be back on October 16
Three elderly customers misled in a similar way. Coincidence?