“Monster that never listens “

This complaint concerns MTN’s continued billing, debit activity, penalties, and refusal to provision data in respect of a paid MyMTN Home Internet service, over an extended period, despite: • advance payments being made; • MTN’s own staff acknowledging system failures; • MTN’s inability to provision the service; • MTN retaining exclusive control of the router, SIM, geo-locking, and provisioning cycle. The conduct complained of is unfair, unreasonable, unjust, and ********, and violates the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, the Electronic Communications Act, and basic principles of contractual reciprocity. ⸻ 2. CONTRACTUAL FRAMEWORK (UNCONTESTED) I subscribed to MyMTN Home Internet – Premium (35 Mbps) on a month-to-month basis, governed by MTN’s published Terms and Conditions. Key uncontested contractual facts: 1. Payment is made in advance (Clause 4.5.1, 6.1). 2. MTN retains full ownership and control of: • the router (Clause 4.11, 4.12); • the SIM; • geo-locking and provisioning (Clause 4.4). 3. Customers cannot self-provision, cannot override MTN systems, and cannot use alternative routers or SIMs. 4. MTN expressly prohibits bolt-on data purchases on Home Internet plans (Clause 4.14). Accordingly, service delivery rests entirely within MTN’s control. ⸻ 3. CHRONOLOGICAL FACTUAL HISTORY (FULL) 3.1 Debit Order Irregularities • I authorised a debit order for the 15th of each month. • MTN debited incorrect amounts and/or at incorrect times. • These errors resulted in failed debits through no fault of my own. ⸻ 3.2 16 December – Store Payment and False Assurance • On 16 December 2025, following a failed debit the previous evening, I attended the MTN Shelly Beach store. • I paid R545.00 in-store. • The store staff and manager confirmed that data would be provisioned shortly. • This did not occur. ⸻ 3.3 MTN’s Internal Contradictions After multiple calls and store visits: • Store staff said they could not provision data. • Call centre agents said the store must assist. • Technical support later alleged an undisclosed R11.50 debit rejection fee was outstanding. • MTN further stated that even if paid, provisioning would only occur on 1 January. This position was never disclosed at the time of payment. ⸻ 3.4 Refusal to Accept Payment / Refusal to Provision • MTN Shelly Beach refused to accept payment of the R11.50. • MTN insisted I must wait for the next cycle. • No service was restored, despite payment having been made. ⸻ 3.5 Forced Emergency Data Purchases Because MTN failed to deliver the contracted service: • I was forced to buy: • R89 bundles (multiple times); • later a R149 7-day bundle; • These purchases were contrary to Clause 4.14, which prohibits bolt-ons. • MTN nevertheless accepted payment when it suited them. ⸻ 3.6 January: Continued Non-Provisioning • On 1 January, data was still not provisioned. • MTN representatives repeatedly stated: “Be patient, it will provision.” • It did not. ⸻ 3.7 Second Debit Irregularity – January • On 15 January, MTN attempted to debit R556.50, not R545.00. • This was reversed by the bank as unauthorised. • MTN had again altered the amount without agreement. ⸻ 3.8 21 January – Overpayment Under Protest • On 21 January 2026, I returned to MTN Shelly Beach. • I paid R570.00, covering: • the disputed R11.50; • a buffer to prevent further system failure. • MTN confirmed data would be provisioned within 48 hours. • It was not. ⸻ 3.9 App Lock-Out and FUP Absurdity • When attempting to buy further temporary data, MTN advised: • I could not recharge; • my “recovery speed” and data had ended; • I must wait until 26 January for expiry before being allowed to buy data again. • This occurred despite no usable service being provided. ⸻ 4. BILLING EVIDENCE (MTN’S OWN STATEMENT) MTN’s statement dated 01 February 2026 confirms: • Invoice issued: R545.00 • Debit rejection fee: R11.50 • Total due: R556.50 • Service description: Home Premium 35 Mbps This conclusively proves that: • MTN billed in full; • app**** penalties; • while failing to deliver the service. ⸻ 5. LEGAL BREACHES 5.1 CPA Section 54 – Failure to Provide Quality Service MTN accepted payment but failed to provide: • continuous access; • usable data; • provisioning within a reasonable time. ⸻ 5.2 CPA Section 48 – Unfair, Unreasonable and Unjust Conduct It is patently unfair to: • debit for a service not delivered; • penalise a customer for MTN’s own system failures; • force repeated store visits and emergency purchases. ⸻ 5.3 CPA Section 41 – Misrepresentation The service was sold as “Premium Home Internet”, yet MTN failed to supply it while continuing to bill as if it had. ⸻ 5.4 Section 49 – Limitation Clauses Cannot Cure Non-Performance MTN cannot rely on limitation clauses while retaining payment without performance. ⸻ 5.5 Unjust Enrichment MTN retained money, imposed penalties, and shifted operational risk to the consumer while controlling the entire service chain. ⸻ 6. RELIEF SOUGHT (CONFIRMED: B + C ONLY) B. Financial and Corrective Relief I formally demand that MTN: 1. Refund or credit all subscription charges billed during periods of non-delivery; 2. Refund all debit rejection fees and penalties; 3. Refund consequential data costs incurred due to MTN’s failure; 4. Rectify the account to reflect: • no arrears; • no penalties; • no adverse status. ⸻ C. Regulatory Intervention I request that: • CGSO investigate unfair billing and service failure; • ICASA investigate non-compliance with ECS obligations; • NCC (CPA) investigate systemic unfair conduct.