Unfair Billing, Service Suspension & Refusal to Cancel – MWEB

MWEB, I note your response, however I need to correct a few points.You stated that you have attempted to contact me — this is not true. I have no missed calls, no emails, and no communication from your side indicating any attempt to reach me. Please provide proof of these contact attempts.Additionally, advising me to contact Retentions while my account is suspended is the same issue I have already raised. Your team has clearly stated that cancellation cannot be processed while the account is suspended, yet at the same time, I am being told to contact you to cancel. This is contradictory and unhelpful.Let me be clear:

• The charges on my account are disputed
• The billing (including prorata charges) was never properly communicated or agreed to
• My service was suspended despite consistent payments
• I am being forced to pay disputed amounts before cancellation, which is unacceptable

Now, on top of that, you are claiming contact attempts that did not happen.I will not be going in circles with this matter.If you are serious about resolving this:

• Provide proof of communication regarding billing changes and contact attempts
• Address the billing dispute properly instead of redirecting me
• Process my cancellation without forcing payment of disputed charges

Until then, this matter remains unresolved.I am continuing with escalation to ICASA and the National Consumer Commission.#MWEB #PoorService #BillingDispute #UnfairPractices

I am extremely disappointed to report that, despite MWEB’s public response to my complaint, there has still been no meaningful assistance or communication received. I was informed that the Retentions team would urgently contact me and that I would receive an email outlining next steps. To date, I have received nothing. No email, no call, no follow-up. This raises even more concern, as MWEB continues to make commitments publicly that are simply not being honoured. To summarize:

• I have not been contacted, despite assurances
• My billing dispute remains unresolved
• My service remains suspended
• I am still being pressured to pay disputed charges
• I am being prevented from cancelling unless I comply with these disputed amounts

This is no longer just a billing issue — it is now a matter of poor service delivery, lack of accountability, and failure to follow through on commitments. I have made every effort to resolve this matter directly and in good faith, yet I continue to be met with delays, contradictions, and now complete silence. Unless urgent and meaningful action is taken, I will proceed with further formal complaints and ensure this experience is fully documented.
I expect:

• Immediate written communication as previously promised
• A proper resolution of the billing dispute
• The ability to cancel my account without being forced to pay disputed charges

At this stage, I cannot recommend MWEB based on my experience. #MWEB #PoorService #BillingDispute #NoResolution #ConsumerRights

Good day,Your response is noted.However, I must highlight the clear contradiction in your communication.On 10 April, I was explicitly advised that your Retentions Team would email me with confirmation of next steps to ensure a proper record of communication. To date, no such email has been received.Now, I am being told that attempts have been made to contact me telephonically, which I dispute. I have no missed calls, no voicemails, and no email correspondence from your team.This continued inconsistency is unacceptable. You cannot commit to written communication and then shift to alleged phone calls without providing any proof of such attempts.For the sake of clarity and record-keeping, I require the following:

• Proof of all alleged contact attempts (dates, times, and channels used)
• The written communication previously promised outlining next steps
• Proper engagement on the billing dispute raised
• Confirmation that my cancellation will be processed without forcing payment of disputed amounts

I will not engage in further back-and-forth telephonic attempts. All communication must be in writing going forward to ensure transparency and accountability.Please treat this matter with urgency. The lack of follow-through and contradictory responses are only reinforcing my decision to proceed with escalation to ICASA and the National Consumer Commission.I await your written response.Regards,
Judith

Mweb inconsistent information provided by your consultants, and now serious concerns regarding your debit order practices.I recently spoke to Brenda from your Retentions department, who advised that she is unable to assist with my cancellation due to a debit balance. I was then transferred to Accounts, where the consultant failed to provide a clear or satisfactory explanation of the charges on my account. To make matters worse, the call was abruptly terminated while I was still engaging, which is both unprofessional and unacceptable.I made a payment on the 25th, yet 21 days later I am being advised that the account reflects an outstanding balance of R1,104.23. This has not been substantiated with any form of breakdown. I require a full and detailed statement explaining how this balance has arisen.In addition, I have received contradictory information from your consultants. On Friday, Sam (via Live Chat) confirmed that the account had been prorated. Today, I am being told that no prorata applies. This inconsistency further demonstrates a lack of internal control and competence in handling my account.Of serious concern is your assertion that debit orders now run on the 1st of the month. I was never provided with a new debit order mandate reflecting this change. Kindly explain how you are continuing to rely on an outdated mandate, particularly where the underlying contract terms appear to have changed. This raises concerns regarding compliance with the Consumer Protection Act and the National Credit Act, which require transparency, fair billing practices, and proper authorization for debits. Any debit processed without a valid and updated mandate may be deemed ********.Your current conduct may also be in breach of the Payments Association of South Africa rules governing debit orders, which require clear authorization and mandate integrity.At this stage, I require the following as a matter of urgency:

• A full and detailed breakdown of all charges on my account;
• Written confirmation, with supporting calculations, regarding whether prorata has been app****;
• A copy of the valid debit order mandate currently re**** upon;
• Immediate processing of my cancellation request.

Should this matter not be resolved promptly, I will escalate the complaint to the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, the National Consumer Commission, and any other relevant regulatory bodies for investigation into your billing and debit order practices.I trust this matter will now receive the urgent attention it requires.

I refer to my account (Account نمبر: ***1) and your latest statement reflecting an outstanding balance of R1,104.23.I hereby place on record that I formally dispute the amount of R1,053.23 invoiced on or about 10 March 2026.This charge is significantly higher than my standard monthly subscription fee (historically ±R469), and no explanation or breakdown has been provided to justify this deviation. As such, the amount appears irregular, inflated, and not aligned with the agreed billing structure.In this regard, you are required, as a matter of urgency, to provide the following:

1. A full itemized breakdown of the R1,053.23 charge, clearly indicating:
   • The specific billing periods covered;
   • Any additional fees, penalties, or adjustments included;
2. Confirmation of whether the service was active, suspended, or disconnected during the period(s) for which this amount was charged;
3. The contractual basis re**** upon for levying any additional or accumulated charges;
4. Proof that the charges comply with applicable consumer protection requirements, including that they are fair, reasonable, and for services actually made available.

Pending receipt of the above, the disputed portion of the account is not acknowledged as due and payable.Furthermore, I place on record that continued billing in the absence of active service, or without proper disclosure and justification, may constitute unfair billing practice. Should this matter not be resolved satisfactorily, I reserve all rights to escalate the dispute to the relevant regulatory and consumer protection bodies without further notice.I require your detailed response within 5 (five) business days of this correspondence.Kindly ensure that all further communication is directed in writing for record purposes.Regards,
Sbongile Uoane

I am extremely frustrated with the poor service I have received.My account was paid in full on 24 April 2026, yet to date I still do not have access to internet services. This is unacceptable, as I rely on this service for my daily activities.I have tried multiple times to resolve the issue through WhatsApp, live chat, and phone calls, but nothing has been resolved. Each time I am told I will be transferred to the next agent, but that never happens, and my query remains unattended.This level of customer service is very disappointing. As a paying customer, I expect my services to be activated promptly and for support channels to function effectively.I request that this matter be treated as urgent and that my internet access be restored immediately. I would also like a clear explanation for the delay and what will be done to prevent this from happening again.I expect a response with a timeline for resolution as soon as possible.

Good day,I once again place on record my formal dispute regarding the continued irregular billing on my account.Despite previous disputes raised, payments made in good faith, and multiple assurances from MWEB representatives that the matter was under investigation, I have now been issued with yet another invoice in the amount of R1,053.23 dated 10 May 2026.This conduct is unacceptable.Your latest statement reflects:

• A payment received on 24 April 2026;
• A credit memo processed on 23 April 2026; and
• A new inflated charge thereafter with no proper explanation or supporting calculations provided.

At this stage, MWEB’s billing practices appear inconsistent, contradictory, and lacking transparency.I formally demand the following within 5 business days:

1. A full itemised breakdown of the R1,053.23 charge;
2. Written confirmation of exactly what billing period this invoice relates to;
3. The contractual basis upon which these additional charges are being levied;
4. Confirmation whether this amount includes prorata billing and, if so, how it was calculated;

Please further note:

• I do not acknowledge the disputed amount as valid and payable until adequate supporting documentation is provided;
• Repeated contradictory explanations from different consultants are unacceptable;
• Continued billing without proper disclosure or justification may constitute unfair billing practices;
• I have consistently requested transparency, yet no proper explanation has been furnished to date.

Should this matter continue unresolved, I reserve my right to escalate the matter further with the relevant regulatory and consumer protection bodies.Going forward, ensure that all communication is provided strictly in writing for record purposes.Regards,
Judith Uoane

Good day,Thank you for your response.I note the explanation provided; however, it raises further concerns regarding the handling and billing of my account.You confirm that:

• A reconnection fee of R30 was charged on 2 May;
• A prorated amount of R503.23 was billed for the period 2 May to 31 May; and
• June was billed in advance.

However, there are material issues that remain unanswered.Firstly, May’s service was effectively already paid for on 24 April 2026, which is reflected on the account. I therefore require clarification on why a further prorated amount for May was raised thereafter.Secondly, I require a proper explanation regarding the credit note of R520 processed on 23 April 2026. The purpose and calculation basis of this credit adjustment has still not been adequately explained, particularly considering the subsequent rebilling and additional charges that followed thereafter.At this stage, I must also question whether the R520 credit note was merely processed as a temporary measure to pacify the ongoing disputes without actually resolving the underlying billing concerns, as the account was subsequently rebilled again shortly thereafter.Further to this, during sign-up I specifically disclosed that I am paid on the 25th of every month and that all payments would therefore be made on or around the 25th. This arrangement was clearly understood at the time, which is why the original debit order mandate was aligned to the 25th.It is therefore unreasonable for MWEB to later alter billing expectations, suspend services, and impose additional charges arising from billing dates and structures that differ from what was originally agreed and communicated.My concern remains that:

• Billing structures appear to have changed without proper communication;
• Different consultants provided contradictory explanations regarding prorata billing;
• Charges continue to be raised despite ongoing disputes and requests for clarity;
• Transparency and proper account reconciliation have been severely lacking throughout this process.

Accordingly, I require the following:

1. A full itemised statement from February 2026 to date reflecting:
   • all invoices,
   • payments,
   • credits,
   • reconnection fees,
   • suspensions,
   • and prorata calculations;
2. A detailed explanation of the R520 credit note dated 23 April 2026 and why it was later followed by further billing adjustments;
3. Confirmation of when and how the billing structure and debit order date changes were communicated to me;
4. Confirmation of the contractual basis re**** upon for billing both prorata charges and advance charges simultaneously.

Please further note that your response was sent from a no-reply email address, which prevents any direct engagement or escalation through the communication channel used by your team. As a result, I will be placing my response on HelloPeter so that the relevant client engagement representative responsible for handling HelloPeter reviews may escalate this matter directly to your Billing/Accounts Department for proper intervention.Please note that this matter remains formally disputed pending a proper review and explanation.Regards,
Sbongile Uoane

Good day,Please note that I previously requested that all communication regarding this matter be provided strictly in writing and not telephonically.I acknowledge that there was an attempt to contact me by phone; however, I was driving at the time and unable to take the call.I am still awaiting proper written feedback regarding the disputed billing on my account, as I would like to proceed with payment today once the matter has been properly clarified and resolved.Given the urgency and the length of time this matter has already been ongoing, I expect this to be resolved by the end of today.Regards,
Sbongile Uoane

Good day,Thank you for your response.However, as someone who works within finance and accounts receivable environments daily, I must state that the explanations being provided remain materially inconsistent and do not reconcile from an accounting and billing perspective.Previously, I was advised that the disputed charges related to prorata billing for March and April. I am now being advised that the payment made on 24 April was allocated towards April arrears arising from non-payment and suspension.These are fundamentally different explanations and cannot both simultaneously represent the true position of the account without a clear reconciliation supporting the movements.From an account management perspective, if the account was genuinely in arrears for April due to non-payment, then the earlier explanation relating to prorata billing for March and April was inaccurate. Conversely, if the charges originated from prorata billing adjustments, then describing the account as being in arrears for April materially changes the nature of the billing dispute.I further require clarity regarding the accounting treatment app**** to the R520 credit processed on 23 April 2026.Your latest explanation states that the system automatically credited the May subscription fee because the account remained suspended. However, once the account was reconnected, the same amount effectively appears to have been rebilled through the subsequent invoice generated on 10 May.From a financial controls and reconciliation perspective, this raises legitimate concerns because:

• a credit adjustment was processed on the account;
• the adjustment appears to have subsequently been reversed through rebilling;
• and no transparent reconciliation or audit trail has been provided explaining the movement clearly.

In standard billing and consumer account practices, credits, reversals, adjustments, and rebilling should be clearly disclosed, consistently explained, and fully traceable on the customer account. At present, the account history and explanations provided do not reflect that level of transparency.I must further place on record that during sign-up I specifically disclosed that I am paid on or around the 25th of every month, which is why the original debit order mandate was aligned to the 25th.Given that this payment cycle was known and recorded from inception, it is difficult to understand why the account would then be billed for two months simultaneously in a single billing cycle, particularly when my payments historically aligned with my salary pay period as previously agreed.From a billing and debtor management perspective, billing a customer for two months at once despite an established and disclosed monthly payment cycle inevitably creates unnecessary account pressure, confusion, and disputes — especially where there are already ongoing billing concerns under investigation.I therefore require the following urgently:

1. A complete itemised reconciliation from March 2026 to date;
2. A month-by-month breakdown reflecting:
   • invoices raised,
   • credits processed,
   • reversals,
   • payments allocated,
   • suspension dates,
   • reconnection charges,
   • and prorata calculations;
3. A detailed explanation reconciling the contradiction between the initial “prorata billing” explanation and the latest “April arrears” explanation;
4. Clarification on the exact accounting basis upon which the R520 credit was processed and subsequently rebilled;
5. Clarification as to why two months were effectively billed together despite the agreed and disclosed 25th pay cycle arrangement.

Until a proper reconciliation and consistent explanation is provided, this matter remains formally disputed.As previously requested, all communication regarding this matter must remain in writing.Regards,
Sbongile Uoane

Good day,I refer to my email dated 26 May 2026 and your response confirming that the matter had been escalated to the billing team for a full investigation and reconciliation review.It has now been seven days since your acknowledgement, and I have yet to receive any substantive feedback, reconciliation, or update regarding the investigation.I find this concerning, particularly given that the dispute relates to billing accuracy, account reconciliation, credits, reversals, and contradictory explanations that remain unresolved. The issues raised were not minor account queries but material concerns regarding the integrity and transparency of the billing app**** to my account.To date, I am still awaiting:• The complete itemised reconciliation from March 2026 to date;
• A month-by-month breakdown of invoices, credits, reversals, payments, suspensions, reconnections, and prorata calculations;
• Clarification regarding the contradictory explanations previously provided relating to "prorata billing" versus "April arrears";
• A detailed accounting explanation of the R520 credit, its subsequent treatment, and the basis upon which it appears to have been rebilled;
• Clarification regarding the handling of the agreed 25th payment cycle arrangement.I would like to remind MWEB that this dispute was formally raised before any adverse action was taken on the account. It is therefore unreasonable for a customer to remain without answers while billing continues to be app**** based on figures that have not yet been adequately reconciled or explained.The absence of feedback after advising that the matter was under investigation raises concerns regarding the timeliness and effectiveness of the dispute resolution process.Kindly provide a status update on the investigation, together with an expected turnaround time for the full reconciliation and written findings. If the investigation has been completed, please provide the outcome and supporting account reconciliation without further delay.I trust this matter will now receive the urgency it warrants.As previously requested, all communication must remain in writing.Regards,Sbongile Uoane

Good day,Thank you for providing the account statement and supporting documents.Having now reviewed the documentation in detail, I must place on record that while the statement provides visibility of the transactions processed on the account, it does not resolve the substantive issues raised throughout this dispute.The documentation confirms that multiple invoices, credits, payments, and adjustments were processed on the account. However, what remains absent is a coherent and consistent explanation reconciling the contradictory positions previously communicated by MWEB.At various stages of this matter, I have been advised that:• The disputed charges related to prorata billing adjustments;
• The account was suspended due to April arrears arising from non-payment;
• The May subscription was automatically credited because the account remained suspended;
• The same service period was subsequently re-invoiced following reconnection.These explanations have been provided independently and at different stages of the dispute without a clear reconciliation showing how they interrelate. As a result, I have had to repeatedly request information that should have been provided at the outset.The statement now confirms that a credit note for the full May subscription amount was processed on 23 April 2026. However, the documentation still fails to explain why the May subscription was first credited and thereafter effectively reintroduced through subsequent billing once the account was reconnected.From an accounting and customer billing perspective, credits, reversals, adjustments, suspensions, reconnections, and rebilling events should be transparent, traceable, and capable of being clearly explained. To date, no satisfactory explanation has been provided regarding the accounting treatment app**** to the May credit and the subsequent rebilling of services.Furthermore, I specifically disclosed at the inception of the agreement that my salary payment date falls on or around the 25th of each month, which is why the original debit order arrangement was aligned to that date. It is therefore concerning that MWEB now relies on revised debit order dates without providing any evidence that I consented to, accepted, or authorised a change to the original arrangement.The explanation that clients were notified by SMS in September 2025 is insufficient in itself. I therefore request:• Proof that the SMS communication was successfully delivered to my number;
• A copy of the communication allegedly sent;
• Confirmation of the legal and contractual basis upon which my debit order date was amended;
• Confirmation of whether MWEB holds any record of my consent to the amended collection dates.I must also note that this matter was formally disputed before the latest billing cycle was generated. Despite being aware of the dispute, MWEB continued billing the account while simultaneously investigating the validity of the charges. This approach is difficult to reconcile with principles of fair billing and dispute resolution.At this stage, my concern is no longer limited to the balance itself. My concern is that I have received multiple explanations, none of which have been adequately reconciled against one another, and I have been required to repeatedly pursue information that should have formed part of the original response.Accordingly, I require a final written response addressing each of the following:• The exact basis upon which the account was suspended on 10 April 2026;
• The relationship between the alleged April arrears and the earlier explanation relating to prorata billing;
• The full accounting treatment of the R520 credit processed on 23 April 2026 and the subsequent rebilling thereof;
• The basis upon which May and June charges were generated following reconnection;
• Evidence supporting the amendment of the originally agreed debit order date;
• Confirmation of the contractual authority re**** upon for that amendment.Should MWEB maintain that its billing and account management were correct, I request that the response be supported by documentary evidence rather than general explanations.The matter therefore remains formally disputed pending receipt of a complete and satisfactory response.As previously requested, all communication must remain in writing.Regards,Sbongile Uoane