NO REDRESS TO DATE

What exactly did I promise to pay if I have not been using your services for almost two years?I need clarification regarding this so-called "promise to pay" account and the amount of R758.07 that you are demanding.In 2023, I informed Rain that I had lost the SIM cards that were originally provided to me. I repeatedly requested replacement SIM cards because I was working from home and depended on those services for my employment. Despite following up for almost three months, no replacement SIM cards were provided.As a result, I was left paying for a service that I could not use. Since my job depended on having reliable connectivity, I had no choice but to cancel the service.In August last year, one of your representatives contacted me and mentioned setting up a "promise to pay" arrangement. However, I was never properly informed what this amount related to, how it was calculated, or why I remained liable for charges when I had no SIM cards, no router, and no access to the service.Even now, I continue receiving billing notifications despite not using your services and not having any active equipment in my possession.Before demanding payment or threatening to hand the account over, please provide:

1. A detailed statement of account showing exactly how the alleged debt was calculated.
2. The basis upon which Rain claims I owe money for services that I could not use.
3. Copies of any agreement or acknowledgement relating to this alleged "promise to pay" arrangement.
4. Confirmation of when my services were cancelled and why billing continued thereafter.

To date, I have not received a satisfactory response to my previous complaints. Instead, I continue to receive generic replies and payment demands without any meaningful explanation.Once I receive a full explanation and supporting documentation, I will consider my position. At present, I do not understand what I am allegedly paying for when I have not used Rain's services for almost two years.
Once this is sorted, I may consider being your client again.

Thank you for your response.I
formally dispute both the alleged debt and the alleged "promise to pay" arrangement.The central issue remains unanswered: what exactly am I supposedly paying for?
For almost two years, I have not used Rain's services. Before the cancellation, I reported that the SIM cards provided by Rain had been lost and repeatedly requested replacements. Those replacement SIM cards were never provided within a reasonable period despite numerous follow-ups. As a result, I was deprived of the very means required to access and use the service.Rain continued billing me during a period when I could not utilise the service because I had no functioning SIM cards. Faced with paying for a service that I could not access and which I depended on for work, I ultimately cancelled the service.
Instead of addressing these facts, Rain now relies on an alleged "promise to pay" arrangement as justification for pursuing payment. However, the existence of a payment arrangement does not automatically prove that the underlying debt is valid, lawful, or owing.
I specifically dispute that I owe the amount claimed because Rain has yet to demonstrate:- What services were actually rendered during the disputed period?
- How I was expected to access those services without replacement SIM cards.
- Why billing continued after I reported the issue and repeatedly requested assistance.
- Why I should be liable for charges incurred while I was unable to use the service.
- The contractual and factual basis upon which the alleged debt was calculated.
- Why the cancellation issue was apparently not properly recorded or processed when first raised.
Rain's latest response merely states that a promise-to-pay arrangement was entered into on 2 October 2025 and that a payment of R50 was made. That statement does not answer the underlying dispute.At most, it suggests that there was a discussion regarding an alleged outstanding balance. It does not establish that the balance was correctly calculated. It does not establish that the charges were justified. It does not establish that services were actually rendered. Most importantly, it does not establish that I knowingly accepted liability for charges relating to services that I had consistently disputed.
If Rain intends to rely on the alleged promise-to-pay arrangement, then I request the following:- A copy of the full agreement allegedly entered into.
- Copies of any recordings, transcripts, notes, or acknowledgements re**** upon.
- Proof that I was informed of the nature and origin of the debt before agreeing to any arrangement.
- Proof that I admitted liability for the debt rather than merely engaging in discussions regarding the account.
- A complete itemised statement showing how every cent of the alleged debt was calculated.I further note that Rain previously stated that subscription charges were adjusted and written off, yet I am now told that I remain liable for a balance allegedly arising from services rendered. These statements appear contradictory and require clarification.The question remains simple and has not yet been answered:What services am I paying for?If Rain's position is that I owe money for services that I could not access because replacement SIM cards were not provided, then I reject that position and require Rain to provide documentary proof supporting its claim.
Until such proof is provided, I do not accept liability for the alleged debt, I do not accept that the promise-to-pay arrangement constitutes an admission that the debt is valid, and I do not accept threats of handover without a full explanation and supporting documentation.
I therefore request that Rain cease issuing generic payment demands and instead provide a substantive response addressing the specific concerns repeatedly raised in this complaint.

Thank you for your response.

With respect, your latest reply raises serious concerns regarding the accuracy of the information Rain is relying upon.
You state that during the alleged interaction, I advised that I would settle the outstanding balance on 6 November, subject to confirmation with my husband.
This statement immediately calls into question the reliability of your records. I am a man. I do not have a husband. If Rain's records contain such a fundamental factual error, then I am entitled to question the accuracy of the remainder of the information being re**** upon to justify this alleged debt.
More importantly, Rain continues to avoid addressing the actual dispute.The issue is not whether a "promise to pay" arrangement was created. The issue is whether the underlying debt was valid in the first place.
You are effectively arguing that because a payment arrangement was set up, the debt must therefore be payable. That is not how disputes work. A payment arrangement cannot create liability where none existed. It can only relate to a debt that is lawfully due and properly substantiated.I have consistently disputed the basis of the charges.I reported the loss of the SIM cards and repeatedly requested replacements. The replacement SIM cards were not provided within a reasonable period despite follow-ups. During that time, I was billed for services that I could not use. Eventually, I stopped using the service altogether and cancelled.
Now, more than two years later, Rain is attempting to rely on an alleged promise-to-pay arrangement as proof that I owe money.That position is unreasonable.
The first time this alleged debt became a real issue was years after I had already stopped using the service. Faced with demands relating to an account that I believed should have been cancelled long ago,

I was presented with a payment arrangement. That does not mean that I accepted the validity of the underlying charges. Nor does it absolve Rain of its responsibility to prove how the debt arose.
Rain has still not answered the most basic question:What exactly am I paying for?To date, Rain has not demonstrated:• What services were rendered during the disputed period?
• How I was expected to utilise those services without replacement SIM cards.
• Why did billing continue despite the service issues that I repeatedly raised?
• Why did the alleged debt only become an issue years later?
• Why a payment arrangement should override the underlying dispute regarding the charges themselves.
The fact that an R50 payment was made as part of a digital process does not prove that the debt was valid. It merely proves that a process occurred. It does not prove that the amount claimed was correctly calculated, that the charges were justified, or that I knowingly accepted liability for services that I could not use.
In fact, Rain's continued reliance on the payment arrangement, while failing to provide the invoices and supporting documentation, suggests that the company is attempting to rely on the arrangement rather than proving the debt itself.

The debt must stand on its own merits.
If Rain believes that I owe money, then provide the invoices, the account history, the dates of the alleged charges, and an explanation of what services were rendered in exchange for those charges.
Until then, I formally dispute both the alleged debt and any suggestion that the so-called promise-to-pay arrangement constitutes a valid acknowledgement of liability.
The arrangement was presented long after I had ceased using the service and long after the underlying issues had arisen. It cannot be used as a substitute for proving that the debt was valid in the first place.
I therefore await the invoices and supporting documentation. Until such proof is provided, I do not accept liability for the alleged amount. I call upon you to rectify the account in an open and fair manner.

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the Rain team for the manner in which this matter was ultimately handled and resolved.

While the issue itself was frustrating and had been ongoing for some time, I appreciate that Rain took the time to engage with my concerns, investigate the matter, and provide a resolution. What stood out to me was the willingness to revisit the complaint, review the history of the account, and address issues that had remained unresolved for a considerable period.
As a customer, all one really asks for is to be heard, treated fairly, and provided with a meaningful opportunity to resolve a dispute. I am pleased that this was eventually achieved.
Customer service is not measured by whether problems arise, but rather by how a company responds when those problems are brought to its attention. In this regard, I am grateful for the assistance received and the efforts made to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
The positive outcome has restored my confidence in Rain, and I will gladly consider rejoining as a customer in the future. It is reassuring to know that when concerns are properly escalated, they are taken seriously and addressed.

Thank you to everyone involved in resolving the matter. Your assistance is genuinely appreciated.Kind regards,