TELKOM MOBILE – A DISSAPOINTMENT

<p>I had decided to upgrade my contract on the 01st of May 2016 to the new deal on offer at Telkom. It was the Smart Broadband Uncapped Wireless 2 + Huawei B315 + Antenna. Telkom had over marketed this particular product and promised customers a package that was so unique and lucrative that you would be crazy not to take the deal. However, this is where Telkom’s inefficiencies and false advertising was brought to light.</p> <p>All my issue started with this one device, but to Telkom, these issues are separate instances. So, I shall break this down into my 2 most recent issues with Telkom.</p> <p>ISSUE 1:</p> <p>On the 01st of May 2016, I had decided to take the new package out with Telkom and went to Westwood Mall Durban branch to take out the contact. The store had advised me that even though you are taking it out with the store, I still needed to check for availability on the net and get an eTicket number. Which means that I still had to apply online (01st problem). I app**** on my phone and got an eTicket number and processed the contract through the store. The store did not have any devices and said I will have to wait until a device is ready for me. Telkom at Westwood experienced some technical difficulties during that week and the application was resubmitted 2 additional times without my notification of the issues that they were experiencing.</p> <p>Online Sales from Telkom had contacted me to finalise the documents as an online order and I had advised them that the store was already handling the matter. The sales consultant had informed me that the application was declined by the branch and that I will not get the contract if I do not finalise it soon. I decided to process the application online. The turnaround and wait times for online are much longer than the store.</p> <p>The store had contacted me the next day and apologised for the inconvenience. The store had a system failure and required the eTicket number again to process the application. I did not know the eTicket number and had made them aware of that. A few hours later they had contacted me and made me aware the device was ready for collection. I went to the store and decided that I would take the device from the store. The consultant at the store made me aware that I need to cancel the online request. Later that day I contacted 081 180 and made them aware of the situation. They had advised me that I should cancel the device when or if it arrives and return the device to the store.</p> <p>The device arrived on the 23rd of May and I was not at home. The courier company left the device with my mother (02nd Problem). Telkom is not allowed to leave the device with anyone except the customer in question as the simcard needs to be Rica’d in the customer’s name. This did not happen and the courier company just left the device and went away. I contacted 081 180 that night upon returning home and was given a cancellation form by the consultant Nomzamo Majola on the 24th of May. On the 27th of May I had returned the form to cancel the device to avoid additional payments as I am aware of how long it takes to resolved disputes and that I was well within the time frame (7 days). The consultant did not provide me with any feedback and I was unsure if the device had been cancelled. I sent a follow up email on the 10th of June to ensure that the device is cancelled off my name. I could not afford an additional R700 a month as this would put me into an overdraft facility eventually. There was no response to this email as well and a few days later I had phoned Telkom and asked for the consultant in question and was transferred to her to resolve my case. I was made aware that the device is in use and that is why the contract could not be cancelled. I was not impressed as I did not open the device and was awaiting collection. I provided them with all the serial numbers and identifications of the device and did this not tie up with what Telkom hadon the system. She escalated to her Team Leader who point blankly said I was lying as the device is in use and the billing is correct. This did not make sense to me and I decided to look at the delivery note and the details on the box (03rd problem). Another mishap by Telkom’s brilliant courier company. They delivered the wrong box. Which in turn means another customer received the box meant to be delivered at my address and has used the device and thus is showing in use on Telkom’s side. I made the consultant aware of this and then only did they believe me. An investigation was opened and the customer who had the device in question was pin pointed. However, Telkom continued to take out extra from my account until eventually I went into an overdraft facility which I current do not have on my account and the debit order failed. At this point Telkom had already owed me an amount in excess of R2, 000. This had caused so much chaos to my account that my debit orders started to fail and I was charged additional fees by the bank for dishonouring debit orders. Further to this, due to non-payment, another company has started to charge me interest on the overdue amounts. On the 25th of August I had reached breaking point on the matter and contacted Telkom again in an effort to resolve this. A manager by the name of Zama Bhengu had taken up my case and promised to resolve the situation. She emailed all the relevant stakeholders to resolve this and yet again Telkom had closed the case number on their own accord. One of the reasons for this is that Telkom kept phoning the router for feedback. Telkom had started taking out so much money that I had started to get the amounts reversed by the Branch in order to survive. I was then handed over to Nu debt.</p> <p>Telkom had handed me over for collection. I saw this as an opportunity to get the case resolved and forwarded the consultant Mokgadi Maake all the relevant documentation. On November 09th Mokgdai had sent me an email stating that the account has been removed from collection and Telkom will resolve. However, Telkom has blocked my account on the 15th of November 2016. I currently have no access to any devices on my name and this put me at a major disadvantage for work purposes. Further to this, Telkom has debited me for the amounts they feel I owe them on the 15th and 16th of November and yet they still disabled my accounts. The consultant has advised me that it will take 7-14 days to reinstate. So it takes 48 hours’ notice to cut services but 7-14 days to reinstate services. Further to this, Telkom now owes me in excess of R6000 and I had to take a loan to ensure my other debit orders don’t fail and I do not get penalised.</p> <p>Telkom does not only owe me money for the amounts they took out extra, but for all penalties and interest levied against me as well the interest I am paying on the loan just to stay above board with my payments. No authority was given by Telkom to take out money from my account whenever they please and Telkom needs to better their policies as this can be considered as ********** activities. I have made multiple phone calls to Telkom since the 23rd of May and only a few case numbers were logged on their side. Telkom consultants continue to throw their turn arounds time in my face for each call I place. The consultants also tell me to be patient as the case is still open even though it hasn’t been attended to for months and months on end.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>ISSUE 2:<br /> I had taken out the Smart Broadband uncapped wireless 2 as part of Telkom’s promotion in May. Customers were promised uncapped internet with only a 50 GB cap for peer to peer networks. Telkom also stated that if any customers is deemed impacting other customers then the acceptable usage policy will kick in and Telkom will throttle the customers that are defaulting. This does not tie up, at one end Telkom has advertised the streaming will never be capped and that there will be no buffering issues whilst streaming. In the advert it was even stated that this will be unlimited and you will never be capped for streaming.</p> <p>However, it seems Telkom uses their acceptable usage policy to get out of all their false advertising and remind customers that they warned about acceptable use. This means that Telkom can promise a customer anything they want to but not deliver as they have the acceptable usage policy to fall back onto.</p> <p>The promotion which had customers believe their router numbers were inputted into the base station and that they could only accommodate 150 per base station is also not true. A relative who purchased the device in Johannesburg brought the device down to an LTE coverage area in Durban and got better speeds in Durban than in Johannesburg(Yet Telkom says his router is connected to that particular base station in Johannesburg). The signal also drops often and I experience buffering and loss of signal at least once a day. Telkom realised their error in advertising and started emailing all the customers about the new AUP they put into place for this internet plan. They also structured a new plan and increased the price of the package and rolled it out to customers and change the advertising to ensure customers are made aware that speeds vary on the devices and that there is a bandwidth limit. However, this should only be put into place for the new customers who were made aware and not the customers who took out the device under the old plans and were promised preferential treatment and higher speeds as part of the 150 a base station promotion. Telkom also gave antennas with each device and promised that a technician will come out to install the aerial without needing the customer to contact the call centre. This was not the case and customers had to phone in to remind Telkom that the aerial needed to be installed. When the technicians arrived, most customers were surprised to find out that the aerial cannot be installed as there was no line of sight and Telkom only installed the aerial if the chord did not exceed 10 metres to where the device was situated at the plug point. Any additional length needed to ensure Line of sight and access to the device with be at the expense of the customer and the company Poynting would needed to be contacted. All this information was not included even in the small print and Telkom led customers to believe that they were getting more than what Telkom was willing to offer. Telkom needs to be held accountable for what they advertise and deliver on the promises made to customers.</p>