1 reviews | Active since Aug 2014
Bad attitude and poor customer service
I had a problem with 24 hour mobility not wanting to repair or replace my damaged phone and them lying to the ombudsman saying I did not want the phone repaired but I wanted a new phone. They collected the phone and said it is beyond repair but they will not replace it. My problem right now is Sipho Mbatha who called to say they wil be collecting the phone for repairs, they did and said I need to pay R150.00. I paid them on the 07/09/15, he then called again on the 10/09/15 to say the phone is still beyond repair and I will need to pay another R150.00 for excess for the phone to be replaced. I did that and then later on that day he tried calling but could not get hold of me and he left a message saying that I will need topay an extra R450.00 and make it R750.00 as it is a second replacement. Why was I not told that before? He was very rude and even said I can even go and complain but they will still not waive the new charge. His exact words' You may contact the ombudsman if you wish to do so, we still require a excess amount to proceed. As the excess payable can not be waived.' Is this how they really treat their customers? I do not appreciate their treament and their rudeness.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
We do apologize for the inconvenience caused as you should have been advised of the R 750 excess for a second replacement within 12 months, after the handset was declared BER the outstanding R 600 should have been requested.
The underwriter is bound by the term of the policy which outlines the excess structures which cannot be wavered.
This complaint has been forwarded to management at the underwriters office in order for the to review all call recordings and take relevant actions.
Thank you again for bringing this matter to our attention.
Feedback will be supp**** once the full investigation has been completed
Kind regards
Megan Hope
***
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
We do apologize for the inconvenience caused as you should have been advised of the R 750 excess for a second replacement within 12 months, after the handset was declared BER the outstanding R 600 should have been requested.
The underwriter is bound by the term of the policy which outlines the excess structures which cannot be wavered.
This complaint has been forwarded to management at the underwriters office in order for the to review all call recordings and take relevant actions.
Thank you again for bringing this matter to our attention.
Feedback will be supp**** once the full investigation has been completed
Kind regards
Megan Hope
***
