MTN – CPA Violation, Unfair Billing & Failure to Accommodate Elderly Consumer (LTE Router Order)

On 24 January 2026, we placed an online order for an MTN LTE Router for my 82-year-old grandmother. Immediately after placing the order, MTN billed us a pro-rata amount as well as the full subscription for the following month, despite no device having been delivered.

On 26 January 2026, we were informed that the router had been handed to DSV for delivery, with fingerprint biometric authentication required on delivery. We immediately contacted DSV to advise that this would not be possible, as my grandmother does not have usable fingerprints due to age. This is officially recorded on her ID card and driver’s licence.

DSV advised that MTN must contact them to arrange a manual delivery.

We then notified MTN in writing, provided my grandmother’s ID number and a copy of her Smart ID card, and were issued reference number: 5f05f3ed-93a7-4***-c5494aa217ae

Despite this, two MTN consultants (Aliziwe and Chantelle) again requested the ID number, which was supp**** for a second time along with the Smart ID attachment. No corrective action was taken.

On 29 January 2026, delivery was attempted and failed again due to the fingerprint requirement.

This is especially concerning given that MTN’s own tracking platform explicitly states:

“Please note that you’ll be required to authenticate yourself via fingerprint scanner upon delivery from the courier. Kindly have your ID and proof of residence available as an alternative.”

Despite this, the delivery driver stated that he could not release the device without a successful fingerprint scan, directly contradicting MTN’s stated delivery terms.

CPA & Elderly Consumer Concerns

MTN’s conduct appears to be in direct contravention of the Consumer Protection Act, including but not limited to: • Section 8 (Right to Equality): Failing to reasonably accommodate an elderly consumer with a known physical limitation constitutes unfair **************. • Section 40 (Unconscionable Conduct): Billing an elderly consumer for a product and service that could not be delivered due to an inflexible process is unreasonable and unfair. • Section 41 (False, Misleading or Deceptive Representations): MTN’s representation that alternative verification would be accepted on delivery was not honoured in practice. • Section 54 (Right to Quality Service): MTN failed to deliver services in a manner and quality that consumers are reasonably entitled to expect. • Section 47 (Overselling & Overbooking): Charging for a service when MTN was unable to fulfil delivery due to its own processes.

Additionally, elderly consumers are recognised as vulnerable consumers, requiring reasonable accommodation and heightened care. MTN was notified of the limitation before delivery, yet failed to adapt its process or prevent repeated failed delivery attempts.

Resolution Required

We request immediate resolution, in one of the following forms: 1. Manual delivery of the router without biometric authentication, in line with MTN’s stated alternative verification process, or 2. Immediate cancellation of the contract, with: • Full reversal of all charges billed to date • No penalties or early termination fees • Written confirmation that no adverse credit listing will occur

Should this matter not be resolved promptly, we reserve the right to escalate the complaint to the NCC and ICASA, as well as pursue further remedies available under the CPA.