Disgusted by this

Good day,

Please note that I do not accept your response or the conclusion reached regarding this matter.

I have consistently maintained that I handed two cellphones to the collector on the day of the repossession. I will not accept responsibility for the alleged loss of one of the devices when I personally witnessed both phones being taken from my premises and have multiple witnesses who can confirm this.

Furthermore, on the day the phones were collected, I was not provided with a copy of the repossession or collection document. I only contacted the collector on 15 July because he had provided me with his contact number. When I asked him about the document, he claimed that he had given it to me. This is completely untrue.

I then had to contact IDSR directly via email to request a copy of the collection documentation. It was only after receiving the document that I discovered a statement indicating that the collector had allegedly lost one of the phones.

When I signed the document on the day of collection, the document was incomplete. I was not given an opportunity to properly review the completed document, I was not informed of what was recorded on it, and nothing was explained to me. I therefore did not know that any statement had been added indicating that the collector had lost a phone.

The collector was also extremely adamant about taking the phones despite me explaining that I was in the process of obtaining the money required to pay the approximately R11,000 that I had been informed was necessary in order for me to keep the devices.

On 15 July, I contacted the collector again to inform him that I had obtained the money and requested that the phones be returned. He informed me that he could not speak at that moment and that he would contact me once he arrived at the office. He never contacted me again.

I also have six witnesses who were present at my premises on the day of the collection and who personally saw the collector take two cellphones. This includes the individuals who were using the phones, namely my daughter and my nephew.

I have also provided photographs showing both phones. The photographs were taken approximately one minute apart. The evidence clearly supports my position that two separate devices were present immediately before the collection.

It is therefore completely unreasonable for me to accept the allegation that I handed over only one phone. There were two phones, both phones were present, both phones were handed to the collector, and multiple people witnessed this.

I find it extremely concerning that the company appears to be accepting the collector's version of events without properly considering the consumer's evidence, including:

My consistent statement that two phones were handed over; Six witnesses who saw both phones being collected; My daughter and nephew, who were in possession of the respective devices; Photographic evidence showing both phones immediately before collection; The fact that I was not provided with the completed collection documentation at the time; The fact that the document was incomplete when I signed it; and The fact that I only became aware of the statement concerning the allegedly lost phone after independently requesting the document the following day.

I am therefore formally requesting that this matter be subjected to a full and proper investigation. I expect all available evidence to be considered and for the collector's actions and documentation to be investigated thoroughly.

If this matter is not properly investigated and resolved, I will have no alternative but to escalate it further. This may include lodging complaints with the National Credit Regulator, the relevant ombudsman or consumer protection body, and obtaining legal assistance where necessary.

I am also prepared to pursue the matter directly against the collector, including opening a ******** case should the circumstances and investigation warrant it. I have the collector's details, as well as details relating to the vehicle that attended my premises, and I have witnesses who are willing to confirm what occurred.

I want to make my position absolutely clear: I will not simply accept an allegation that I handed over one phone when I know, and have evidence and witnesses to support, that two phones were collected from my home.

I therefore request a written response confirming that a further investigation will be conducted and advising me of the outcome.

I expect this matter to be treated with the seriousness it deserves.
Furthermore, please see attached the statement of one of my witnesses, namely my brother-in-law, who was personally present and assisted with wiping both phones before they were handed over to the collector.

We were specifically instructed to wipe the phones before collection, as we were informed that no personal information should remain on the devices when they were taken to the offices. My brother-in-law was therefore the person who wiped both phones in accordance with those instructions, and his statement is attached as supporting evidence.

I am also attaching photographs clearly showing both phones, taken only one minute apart and immediately before the phones were wiped and handed over to the collector. These photographs provide further contemporaneous evidence that two phones were in my possession and were prepared for handover on the day of the collection.

This evidence is particularly important in light of the fact that your Annexure B reflects only one phone, namely the iPhone 13. I have never previously seen or been provided with the document now being re**** upon to suggest that only one phone was handed over, and I strongly dispute the accuracy of that record.

I also want to make it absolutely clear why this matter is so important to me. If I had handed over only one phone and had genuinely stated that the other phone was lost, there would be absolutely no reason for me to be pursuing this matter in the manner that I am. I would not be subjecting myself to the stress, effort, time and inconvenience involved in repeatedly raising this dispute, gathering evidence, obtaining witness statements and challenging the documentation provided to me.

It simply does not make sense that I would go through all of this if I knew that I had handed over only one phone. If that had been the truth, there would be nothing for me to dispute. I would have accepted the position reflected in the documentation.

Instead, I am pursuing this matter because I know that two phones were handed over to the collector. I am prepared to provide photographic evidence and witness testimony because I know what occurred on the day in question.

This situation is also extremely serious to me because the allegations and documentation now being re**** upon effectively portray me as being dishonest or untruthful. I take serious exception to any suggestion that I falsely claimed to have handed over two phones when only one was surrendered. That is not who I am, and I refuse to have my honesty and integrity unfairly called into question when I have evidence supporting my version of events.

Why would I invest this much time and effort into pursuing this matter if I knew that I had only handed over one phone? There would simply be no reason to do so. The very fact that I continue to pursue this matter, despite the time, stress and effort involved, should make it clear that I am doing so because I genuinely know that both the iPhone 13 and the iPhone 15 were handed over.

My attached photographs and witness statement support my position that two phones were handed over to the collector: the iPhone 13 and the iPhone 15. The fact that your documentation reflects only one device cannot alter what physically occurred on the day of the repossession.

I therefore expect these attachments, together with the photographic evidence and witness statement, to be properly considered and thoroughly investigated. The discrepancy between the two phones handed over and the single phone reflected in your Annexure B remains a serious matter that requires a full, transparent and satisfactory explanation.