MIA Telecoms Internet
<div>So here is the story; We signed up with MIA with a MTN 10MB link with a 99% SLA. The service was not bad. However, every time there was loadshedding, the link went down. (Completely) We asked them to remedy the situation but got tragic service from them. They said that the MTN tower's batteries got ******, and there is nothing they can do about it. After various communications and pleadings for them to please help us with the problem, nothing was done to remedy the situation. We decided to go to a service provider (WIRULINK), that was working during loadshedding. We canceled the contract with MIA. We received a letter from them that in short said the following. "We don't care if you did not receive service from us and neither do we care how many times you asked us to remedy the situation, we want our future payments, and a decommissioning fee of R5000" A company that makes you sign a 99 % uptime SLA and do not care when they cannot provide you with the service as per their agreement cannot be allowed to get away with their incompetency. </div>
In the aforementioned reply letter, as is practice, the relevant clauses to which he (or in this case his company) bound itself, were detailed and quoted verbatim from the signed Agreement. We informed his attorney in our reply letter of the correct cancellation clauses which were once again quoted verbatim from the signed Agreement. Mr. Quinton G has chosen to take our detailed reply letter and paraphrase his interpretation of its content to suit his agenda which makes his comments spurious and inaccurate. It is important to note that the matter became settled with Mr G’s Company paying an agreed settlement amount to us, which appears counter intuitive if anyone accepts his comments about warning people not to deal with us. Regards MIA”
In the aforementioned reply letter, as is practice, the relevant clauses to which he (or in this case his company) bound itself, were detailed and quoted verbatim from the signed Agreement. We informed his attorney in our reply letter of the correct cancellation clauses which were once again quoted verbatim from the signed Agreement. Mr. Quinton G has chosen to take our detailed reply letter and paraphrase his interpretation of its content to suit his agenda which makes his comments spurious and inaccurate. It is important to note that the matter became settled with Mr G’s Company paying an agreed settlement amount to us, which appears counter intuitive if anyone accepts his comments about warning people not to deal with us. Regards MIA”