dD
darrenblom D
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2010
02 Jun 2026, 16:06
Poor after sales service
Just stay away from this business and their products! I bought a tablet from them off Amazon. This tablet started out well, but then began with ghost touch symptoms, with the tablet screen jumping around all over the place. I returned to Okitel for repair. They claimed it had physical damage and required me to pay R1,200 for a new digitizer. I disputed the physical damage but Okitel claimed there could be no other reason for the symptoms. On return of the tablet the Ghost touch symptoms were still present. I returned again for repair. Was returned exactly the same. Sent back for the 3rd time and returned, again with no change. Okitel refuses to refund me. They want it back again for a 4th time. I would not recommend this tablet or Okitel as a brand as they will not honour their warranty and blame it on the consumer.
Helpful (0)
Replies (5)0
Replies (5)
Oukitel South Africa's replyOfficial
03 Jun 2026, 07:35 Dear Darren,
Thank you for your feedback. We are sorry to hear that you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of this matter.
For clarity, when the device was first received by our service department in January, our assessment identified signs of physical damage consistent with pressure having been app**** to the screen. This finding was communicated to you at the time, and the ghost-touching symptoms were determined to be related to physical damage rather than a manufacturing defect.
Based on this assessment, you authorised and paid for the digitizer replacement. Following the repair, the device underwent testing and quality control procedures, and no faults were detected prior to being returned. The device was confirmed to be functioning correctly when it left our workshop.
When you later reported similar symptoms, we requested that the device be returned for further inspection. However, approximately one month elapsed before the device was made available to us. Once received, we again tested the tablet and returned it in working condition following our assessment.
Approximately a month later, you reported the same issue once more. Upon reinspection, the device again exhibited signs consistent with physical damage rather than a manufacturing defect. Despite this, and as a gesture of goodwill, we carried out additional diagnostics, cleaned and reseated the internal connectors, retested the device, and returned it to you at no charge, even though the fault was not determined to be warranty-related.
At no stage were our technicians able to confirm a manufacturing defect. Our assessments have consistently indicated that the symptoms are associated with physical damage rather than a fault covered under the manufacturer's warranty.
While we understand your frustration, we have made every effort to assist, including multiple inspections, testing, repairs, and additional work beyond the initial authorised repair. We remain willing to inspect the device again and discuss further repair options should you wish to proceed.
Kind regards,
Oukitel South Africa
Oukitel South Africa's reply03 Jun 2026, 07:35
Official
Dear Darren,
Thank you for your feedback. We are sorry to hear that you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of this matter.
For clarity, when the device was first received by our service department in January, our assessment identified signs of physical damage consistent with pressure having been app**** to the screen. This finding was communicated to you at the time, and the ghost-touching symptoms were determined to be related to physical damage rather than a manufacturing defect.
Based on this assessment, you authorised and paid for the digitizer replacement. Following the repair, the device underwent testing and quality control procedures, and no faults were detected prior to being returned. The device was confirmed to be functioning correctly when it left our workshop.
When you later reported similar symptoms, we requested that the device be returned for further inspection. However, approximately one month elapsed before the device was made available to us. Once received, we again tested the tablet and returned it in working condition following our assessment.
Approximately a month later, you reported the same issue once more. Upon reinspection, the device again exhibited signs consistent with physical damage rather than a manufacturing defect. Despite this, and as a gesture of goodwill, we carried out additional diagnostics, cleaned and reseated the internal connectors, retested the device, and returned it to you at no charge, even though the fault was not determined to be warranty-related.
At no stage were our technicians able to confirm a manufacturing defect. Our assessments have consistently indicated that the symptoms are associated with physical damage rather than a fault covered under the manufacturer's warranty.
While we understand your frustration, we have made every effort to assist, including multiple inspections, testing, repairs, and additional work beyond the initial authorised repair. We remain willing to inspect the device again and discuss further repair options should you wish to proceed.
Kind regards,
Oukitel South Africa
dD
darrenblom D's updateReviewer Update
03 Jun 2026, 13:43Hi Okitel
Well done. That is truly an excellent response that manages to paint me as a disgruntled, product-abusing, customer while painting yourselves as a caring, going-the-extra-mile, product supplier.
However, your version of the “facts”, have some inconsistencies.
When I first returned the tablet for repair, you offered no evidence of the claimed physical abuse, only that, the digitizer was broken and this can only be damaged by pressing too hard, which is not true. It can fail by pressing too hard, but it can also fail due a manufacturing defect. But, if it's physical abuse then I need to pay, so you chose that “fact”. I paid for this repair under duress denying any physical damage.
On return from the repair, the device had exactly the same symptoms as before, within 10 minutes of unpacking it. The fact that it took a month to be returned to you is irrelevant.
When sent back for the second time, the actions you performed were that of a software reset and reinstall. No mention was made at the time of any further physical damage which you now claim. So, which was it? Additional physical damage, that just slipped your mind at the time and are only now remembering? Bearing in mind that the repair that you carried out was a software reset. How would this help if it was indeed a physical damage problem like you now claim?
After the third repair, you claimed to have cleaned and reseated internal connections as a solution to what you also now claim to be physical damage! Again, if there truly was physical damage, how would this solution have been helpful?
According to your version of the truth, I must be extremely abusive to the device. If that was the case, please provide dated photographic evidence of your claims of repeated physical abuse of the device. If you can provide this, I will retract all complaints and issue an apology. If you can’t provide any evidence, then I would like an apology and a refund.
As it stands, you are claiming physical damage, as that is not covered under warranty and not your fault. The fact that the same symptom has persisted after 3 separate “repairs”, one part replacement (at my cost), one software update and one open-up and put back together tells me that you never got to the root cause of the problem, which I now maintain is a defective device.
Sending the device back to you would be a futile exercise, as you will once again just claim physical damage, without any proof.
Regards
Darren
dD
darrenblom D's update03 Jun 2026, 13:43
Reviewer Update
Hi Okitel
Well done. That is truly an excellent response that manages to paint me as a disgruntled, product-abusing, customer while painting yourselves as a caring, going-the-extra-mile, product supplier.
However, your version of the “facts”, have some inconsistencies.
When I first returned the tablet for repair, you offered no evidence of the claimed physical abuse, only that, the digitizer was broken and this can only be damaged by pressing too hard, which is not true. It can fail by pressing too hard, but it can also fail due a manufacturing defect. But, if it's physical abuse then I need to pay, so you chose that “fact”. I paid for this repair under duress denying any physical damage.
On return from the repair, the device had exactly the same symptoms as before, within 10 minutes of unpacking it. The fact that it took a month to be returned to you is irrelevant.
When sent back for the second time, the actions you performed were that of a software reset and reinstall. No mention was made at the time of any further physical damage which you now claim. So, which was it? Additional physical damage, that just slipped your mind at the time and are only now remembering? Bearing in mind that the repair that you carried out was a software reset. How would this help if it was indeed a physical damage problem like you now claim?
After the third repair, you claimed to have cleaned and reseated internal connections as a solution to what you also now claim to be physical damage! Again, if there truly was physical damage, how would this solution have been helpful?
According to your version of the truth, I must be extremely abusive to the device. If that was the case, please provide dated photographic evidence of your claims of repeated physical abuse of the device. If you can provide this, I will retract all complaints and issue an apology. If you can’t provide any evidence, then I would like an apology and a refund.
As it stands, you are claiming physical damage, as that is not covered under warranty and not your fault. The fact that the same symptom has persisted after 3 separate “repairs”, one part replacement (at my cost), one software update and one open-up and put back together tells me that you never got to the root cause of the problem, which I now maintain is a defective device.
Sending the device back to you would be a futile exercise, as you will once again just claim physical damage, without any proof.
Regards
Darren
Oukitel South Africa's replyOfficial
03 Jun 2026, 13:48Dear Darren,
Thank you for your detailed response.
We acknowledge your comments and understand your continued frustration with the outcome of the repairs.
To clarify, at the time of the initial assessment, the technician identified physical damage consistent with pressure-related impact on the display assembly. This assessment was based on the condition of the device upon receipt and was communicated accordingly prior to repair. Based on this finding, the digitizer replacement was carried out as an authorised paid repair.
Following the repair, the device was tested and confirmed to be functioning correctly before being returned. When the device was subsequently returned to us, it was again evaluated and tested in accordance with standard diagnostic procedures. No software-related fault was identified during the second assessment, and the device was returned after inspection.
On the third intake, additional internal inspection and connector cleaning were performed as part of further diagnostics to ensure no intermittent connection faults were present. These steps are standard troubleshooting procedures when addressing display-related symptoms that may arise from either impact or connection instability.
We do not dispute your experience of the recurring symptoms; however, based on all assessments conducted, we have not been able to replicate or confirm a manufacturing defect under controlled testing conditions. At no stage has evidence been found to support a claim of an inherent hardware fault originating from manufacture.
We note your request for photographic evidence of physical damage. Where such damage is clearly visible at the time of intake, it is recorded as part of our internal inspection process; however, in this case we do not have additional dated imagery beyond the intake assessment notes already recorded.
That said, we remain committed to resolving the matter fairly. If you would still like the device to be re-evaluated, we are prepared to collect it once again and conduct a further full diagnostic assessment to ensure no contributing fault has been overlooked.
Kind regards,
Oukitel South Africa
Oukitel South Africa
Oukitel South Africa's reply03 Jun 2026, 13:48
Official
Dear Darren,
Thank you for your detailed response.
We acknowledge your comments and understand your continued frustration with the outcome of the repairs.
To clarify, at the time of the initial assessment, the technician identified physical damage consistent with pressure-related impact on the display assembly. This assessment was based on the condition of the device upon receipt and was communicated accordingly prior to repair. Based on this finding, the digitizer replacement was carried out as an authorised paid repair.
Following the repair, the device was tested and confirmed to be functioning correctly before being returned. When the device was subsequently returned to us, it was again evaluated and tested in accordance with standard diagnostic procedures. No software-related fault was identified during the second assessment, and the device was returned after inspection.
On the third intake, additional internal inspection and connector cleaning were performed as part of further diagnostics to ensure no intermittent connection faults were present. These steps are standard troubleshooting procedures when addressing display-related symptoms that may arise from either impact or connection instability.
We do not dispute your experience of the recurring symptoms; however, based on all assessments conducted, we have not been able to replicate or confirm a manufacturing defect under controlled testing conditions. At no stage has evidence been found to support a claim of an inherent hardware fault originating from manufacture.
We note your request for photographic evidence of physical damage. Where such damage is clearly visible at the time of intake, it is recorded as part of our internal inspection process; however, in this case we do not have additional dated imagery beyond the intake assessment notes already recorded.
That said, we remain committed to resolving the matter fairly. If you would still like the device to be re-evaluated, we are prepared to collect it once again and conduct a further full diagnostic assessment to ensure no contributing fault has been overlooked.
Kind regards,
Oukitel South Africa
Oukitel South Africa
dD
darrenblom D's updateReviewer Update
03 Jun 2026, 14:45Hi Okitel
So, you are now changing your list of events and agree with me that there was no physical damage present the second and third time the device was in for repair.
Also, disappointing that you have zero evidence of the physical damage for the first repair and I just have to accept your word for it. I mean it’s not like you have created **** physical damage assertions in the past. Oh wait, you did in your first HelloPeter response and then changed your story when caught in a lie that the repairs you carried out did not make any sense for physical damage.
I will email details for the return and send the tablet back for the LAST time. I will also then video record the unboxing and testing when I receive it back and if it fails again after the fourth repair, you will need to come up with another resolution that is not, the same as the first four failed attempts.
Regards
Darren
dD
darrenblom D's update03 Jun 2026, 14:45
Reviewer Update
Hi Okitel
So, you are now changing your list of events and agree with me that there was no physical damage present the second and third time the device was in for repair.
Also, disappointing that you have zero evidence of the physical damage for the first repair and I just have to accept your word for it. I mean it’s not like you have created **** physical damage assertions in the past. Oh wait, you did in your first HelloPeter response and then changed your story when caught in a lie that the repairs you carried out did not make any sense for physical damage.
I will email details for the return and send the tablet back for the LAST time. I will also then video record the unboxing and testing when I receive it back and if it fails again after the fourth repair, you will need to come up with another resolution that is not, the same as the first four failed attempts.
Regards
Darren
Oukitel South Africa's replyOfficial
04 Jun 2026, 08:39Dear Darren,
Thank you for your response.
To clarify, our position has not changed. The initial assessment identified signs consistent with physical damage to the display assembly, which formed the basis for the authorised digitizer replacement. The subsequent inspections were focused on diagnosing the recurring symptoms reported and ensuring that no other contributing factors had been overlooked.
As part of those investigations, additional troubleshooting procedures were performed, including software diagnostics and inspection of internal connections. These are standard diagnostic steps and do not alter the findings of the original assessment.
We acknowledge your concerns regarding the lack of photographic evidence from the initial intake. While our assessment notes were recorded at the time, we accept that we are unable to provide additional photographic documentation from that inspection.
We appreciate your willingness to allow us a further opportunity to assess the device. Once we receive your collection details, we will arrange collection and ensure that the device undergoes a comprehensive evaluation by our technical team. We will also provide you with detailed feedback on the findings following the assessment.
Our objective remains to identify the root cause of the reported issue and work towards an appropriate resolution based on the outcome of the evaluation.
Kind regards,
Oukitel South Africa
Oukitel South Africa's reply04 Jun 2026, 08:39
Official
Dear Darren,
Thank you for your response.
To clarify, our position has not changed. The initial assessment identified signs consistent with physical damage to the display assembly, which formed the basis for the authorised digitizer replacement. The subsequent inspections were focused on diagnosing the recurring symptoms reported and ensuring that no other contributing factors had been overlooked.
As part of those investigations, additional troubleshooting procedures were performed, including software diagnostics and inspection of internal connections. These are standard diagnostic steps and do not alter the findings of the original assessment.
We acknowledge your concerns regarding the lack of photographic evidence from the initial intake. While our assessment notes were recorded at the time, we accept that we are unable to provide additional photographic documentation from that inspection.
We appreciate your willingness to allow us a further opportunity to assess the device. Once we receive your collection details, we will arrange collection and ensure that the device undergoes a comprehensive evaluation by our technical team. We will also provide you with detailed feedback on the findings following the assessment.
Our objective remains to identify the root cause of the reported issue and work towards an appropriate resolution based on the outcome of the evaluation.
Kind regards,
Oukitel South Africa