Dispute on the invoice bill and poor Cell C customer care service

<p>My name is Houston Carstens and I have a cell phone contract with Cell-C which commenced June 2015. My number is ********** 561.</p> <p> </p> <p>I recently traveled abroad to the USA and departed on the 09 July and returned on the 30 July 2016.</p> <p>On the day of travelling and departure at Cape Town airport, I telephone the Cell-C call centre to query and discuss matters related to whether I should active “International Roaming” .The call centre lady eventually convinced me that I should not proceed with international roaming because of the high cost involved and should rather utilise the Wi-Fi options at airports and abroad. I agreed to this and requested her to confirm that I did not have international roaming....or that it was inactive. She confirmed and concurred.</p> <p>When I return to Cape Town, I received an invoice bill of nearly R8015, covering specifically two days in that period, namely the 09 July and 30 July 2016. I telephoned the call centre to query and several reference numbers were raised:</p> <p>1. ********** 568</p> <p>2. ********** 952</p> <p>3. ********** 910</p> <p>4. Incident 161 ********** 50 raised 02 Oct 2016</p> <p>4. ********** 485 raised on 14th Oct 2016</p> <p>I initially started discussions with a call centre person who confirmed the recorded conversation on the 9 July 2016. Thereafter I was handed over to the several other individuals stemming from a supervisor to a call centre manager.</p> <p>The close out to all the above query references was that international roaming was actived at the store in which I commenced my contract in June 2015. Several of the above references and cases were closed without speaking to me.</p> <p>I would like to raise a dispute on the matter and have my case relooked at. The fundamental issue here is that the call centre when contacted on the 9 July 2016, did not perform their duty with due diligence. Why would I as a cell-c customer request international roaming if I knew it was activated. Also, why did the operator not check my account status to confirm that my account had indeed international roaming and then verbally confirm with me , that it did not. This is evident in the telephone recording.</p> <p>I feel the closeout of the above reference/s was not done ethically as the cell-c investigator did not want cell-c to take responsibility for their actions and poor customer service on the date of 09 July 2016.</p> <p>The right thing to do, would be to acknowledge that there was a slip/error on cell-c side, and that the cost of R8015 be credit to my bank account. By trying to cover up the issue highlights gross in competencies and questions the values and mission statement of Cell-C as a company.</p>