Misrepresentation/deception/false marketing and the absence of Contract

Subject: Formal Complaint Against Pep Stores / Phoneyam – Misrepresentation and Absence of Contract

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am lodging a formal complaint against Pep Stores and Phoneyam regarding a misleading and unfair mobile phone agreement that I was subjected to.

On 6 April 2025, I visited the Pep store at Kolonnaide Mall with the intention of purchasing a phone for R3,500 in cash. While in the store, a sales representative (a gentleman in black) approached me and offered what he described as a six-month, interest-free payment plan. This sounded appealing and I agreed. However, the process that followed was highly misleading and deceptive:

I was immediately asked to pay R1,200 upfront.

A week later, I was unexpectedly charged R238, which I only recently discovered was for insurance – something that was never explained to me.

At no point was I provided with a written contract, agreement, or terms and conditions to review or sign. Instead, I was asked to sign on a black signature pad, which I was told was merely to confirm the collection of the phone. I later discovered that my signature had been app**** to a contract I had never seen, discussed, or received by email.

To my shock, I later learned that the phone was not sold to me under a six-month interest-free plan, but instead classified as a rental device under a 13-month contract, after which additional amounts would still be owed. This was never disclosed upfront.

When I attempted to stop payments due to this misrepresentation, Pep/Phoneyam remotely locked the phone, rendering it unusable. They further claimed that the lock was enforced via the motherboard. This conduct is both unfair and ********.

To highlight:

Who would knowingly rent a Samsung A16 (valued at approximately R3,500), especially when I had the full cash amount available at the time?

This scheme amounts to false advertising and deliberate misrepresentation, designed to deceive customers.

Pep must also be held accountable for allowing a third-party company, Phoneyam, to exploit walk-in customers under the Pep brand.

This practice clearly violates the Consumer Protection Act, specifically:

The transaction was misrepresented to me.

I was denied my right to a written and transparent agreement.

Locking my phone without a valid and informed agreement is unfair and ********.

Accordingly, I request that the NCC investigates this matter and takes appropriate action. My demands are as follows:

Immediate cancellation of this so-called agreement without penalties.

Immediate release/unlocking of my phone.

An investigation into Pep/Phoneyam’s practices to prevent similar exploitation of other consumers.

Please note that I am also sharing this experience on social media platforms to warn other consumers about this deceptive practice.

I trust this complaint will be taken seriously and acted upon urgently.

Sincerely, Patience