False advertising and lack of transparency

I signed up with Debt Rescue after being told I’d receive a cellphone after three months of consistent payments. I’ve now made every instalment in full and on time, yet they claim I “don’t qualify” because of so-called “partial” or “late” payments — even though my bank statements and proof of payment show I paid before or on payday each month.

Their Payment Distribution Agency records payments 4–8 days late, and even some creditor payments have gone through well after I paid, putting my accounts at unnecessary risk. Despite repeated proof being sent, their “management feedback” keeps changing with new excuses.

What’s worse, transparency disappears over time — in the beginning you’re shown exactly who was paid and how much, but later you’re left in the dark. If this level of inconsistency and poor communication was made clear upfront, I would never have joined.

Debt Rescue’s advertising of the cellphone benefit without clear terms feels like false or misleading marketing, and their failure to allocate payments promptly is deeply concerning.

I would not recommend Debt Rescue to anyone until they improve transparency, accuracy, and accountability.

Dear Marlize,

Thank you for your response.

After thoroughly reviewing your feedback, I must correct several inaccuracies:

1. All payments were made on or before the 25th of each month, as per the mandate. The only instance where a debit order did not go through was due to your system attempting collection on the 24th, while my employer processes salaries on the 25th (or the preceding Saturday when applicable). Payments were therefore made immediately after salary clearance — within mandate date and in full.


2. Proof of payment (POP) for each month, showing timestamps between 02:00 and 04:30 AM on the 25th, was submitted. If your Payment Distribution Agency (IPDA) only reflected them days later, that is an internal processing delay, not a late payment on my part.


3. Your statement that “payments were made after or on the 1st” is demonstrably incorrect. I request documentary proof from IPDA showing the exact date and time they received and processed my payments from their bank account, not from your internal record.


4. Regarding “short payments,” the monthly instalment of R9 606.66 was met in full, even when split into two transactions (e.g., R2 700 + R6 952 on 25 October 2025). Partial payments on the same day do not constitute non-compliance.


5. The cellphone promotion was marketed as a guaranteed benefit after three consecutive payments, without disclosure of hidden or conditional criteria. If such terms exist, please furnish me with a copy of the original signed agreement or campaign material clearly stating those terms. Otherwise, the omission constitutes a misrepresentation in terms of Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA 68 of 2008).


I therefore request, within 5 business days:

- A detailed breakdown of when IPDA received and processed each payment;

- A copy of the original promotional terms; and

- A written correction confirming that my payments were made on time and in full.


If this cannot be provided, I will escalate the matter to the National Credit Regulator (NCR) and the National Consumer Commission (NCC) for independent investigation under Sections 44 and 52 of the National Credit Act, and Section 41 of the CPA.

Kind regards,
Levison