Can of worms for man posting about dodgy debits
WHEN Hendrik de Villiers posted a comment on consumer complaints website Hellopeter, he had no idea he would end up being sued for defamation.
On Tuesday, the retired internal auditor became the unwitting subject of an urgent high court interdict following his posts to the site, starting in October.
The 55-year-old from Randburg, Gauteng, did not oppose the application brought by a Durban-based company. He was ordered to remove his comments and pay the costs of the application.
De Villiers posted the comments on the watchdog site after being asked by a friend, estate agent David Jacobs, to look into unauthorised debits from LEA Collect (LLC Collections) from his agency’s account.
Jacobs was debited four times for R85 in October and paid R67 to reverse the debits plus another R43 to put stop payments on two more debits scheduled to hit his account again at the end of the month. LLC told him a syndicate was behind the debits.
De Villiers then responded to several of the 80 complaints about LEA Collect on the site.
He said LEA Collect wrote a general response on Hellopeter, confirming that the deductions were false and stating that the money was refunded.
“In my opinion they admit to committing fraud and should be criminally prosecuted. Your as- sistance is needed to have them prosecuted,” De Villiers posted.
After he became aware of a Sunday Times investigation into the rogue debits, he posted on Hellopeter again, referring complainants to the reporter.
It was after this post that attorneys acting for LLC Collections e-mailed De Villiers on November 3 demanding he remove his posts within two hours or face an urgent order forcing him to do so.
Lawyer Simon ChetwyndPalmer from Shepstone & Wylie said it was defamatory to publish statements that his client was guilty of criminal conduct and for Hellopeter to republish them. This was “compounded by a journalist seeking more information so that our client be prosecuted”.
De Villiers did not remove the posts but responded to the attorneys the following day, apologising for the post and explaining his interest.
In a second e-mail, he asked if the company had taken any steps against whoever was responsible for the unlawful debits and asked for contact numbers of people who could clarify the matter. “I really want to help,” he wrote.
He also posted updates on Hellopeter a day later, saying the investigation would be “intensified” but that it was “premature” at that stage to blame anyone for wrongdoing without first obtaining the facts, and the fact that the names LEA Collect/LLC Collections appeared on bank statements did not mean they were involved in the illegal deductions. He again encouraged complainants to contact this reporter.
But two days later, lawyers demanded he remove his comments or face court action.
When De Villiers failed to respond, another letter was sent on November 7 saying it was clear he was intent on causing LLC as much damage as he could, “possibly in cahoots with Megan Powers [sic]”.
A few days later, the attorneys served papers on De Villiers, summonsing him to the High Court in Joburg for an urgent interdict this Tuesday.
De Villiers told the lawyers he was not in a position to defend the action, and had already unsuccessfully tried to remove all comments from the site.
But the attorneys said he had ample opportunity to remove the posts and that they were proceeding.
A rattled De Villiers immediately contacted Hellopeter, saying he was being sued and asking for help to remove the posts urgently. Hellopeter said it was unable to help, and so the order was granted.
Eventually, the attorneys, under pressure from LLC, showed him how to use a facility on the Hellopeter site whereby the author of a post can delete it.
The Sunday Times asked Hellopeter owner Peter Cheales why it had not assisted De Villiers, which would have averted the court order. He apologised for not being “fully conversant with the idiosyncrasies” of how third-party social media, such as Facebook, applied to his site.