POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE OR LACK THEREOF FROM VODACOM IN THE CASE OF SUSPECTED IDENTITY THEFT

The complainant hereof had lodged a complaint against Vodacom regarding ******* access to her airtime and data by an unknown cellular number early 2019. In light of the fact her cellular phone is utilized for business purposes whilst in the employ within the government sector her cellular holds sensitive and confidential business information. Upon logging several phone calls during the course of business to Vodacom, the consultants had eventually established that the additional user had been linked onto her profile as an alternate number to her existing prepaid number with Vodacom which is why her data and airtime was been depleted. Upon disclosing the identity of the ********** user it was established that his name is very different from the complainants name and is unknown to the complainant. The complainant had clarified with Vodacom that she had no idea as to the identity of the ********** user upon several inquiries. Thus the matter had been escalated to the relevant officials at the government department to rule out any potential espionage or compromising of sensitive state information. Vodacom had been requested to conduct investigations and to provide an investigation report in writing. Numerous phone calls to Vodacom had proven futile as either the complainant was placed on hold for close to two hours or the call cuts off upon reaching a consultant. Despite numerous phone calls and follow ups with Vodacom from early 2019, the matter has still not been resolved as the complainant is still receiving continuous emails via her work emails including but not limited to the following:

"We have found unusual or high usage on your mobile ***x which is outside of the limits set within your acceptable usage profile. Your mobile has been flagged and will be reviewed internally. Should you have any queries regarding this please contact your mobile department. Details of the unusual or high usage found along with your usage profile limits is as follows: Disallowed Traffic & Services Premium Rated SMS usage is disallowed. Found 1 Premium Rated SMS event".

"You have exceeded your Total Data spend call limit on ***xx. Your line will be soft locked. Please refer to your monthly bill. For queries call 082111 free from your Vodacom cellphone...You have exceeded 50% of your Total Data spend limit usage on ***xx. To update your limit ,visit Vodacom.co.za or call 082 111 for queries".

The above and more especially several electronic correspondence, innumerable telephone calls to Vodacom and the telephone discussions with Vodacom officials up to and including head office ensued. The writer hereof was advised that the above dispute remained unresolved. Further Vodacom had confirmed that an unknown user has been accessing the complainants device, depleting her airtime and data as the unknown user with cellular number ***xx was included onto the complainants profile. As advised, since the complainants device is utilized for business purposes and given the fact that the said device holds highly sensitive government information, the employer had requested an urgent full investigation of the matter to be formalized with an investigation report setting out the outcome/s in writing. The writer hereof further confirmed having advised Vodacom officials that Vodacom had not afforded her with the courtesy of a response to the various electronic correspondence. Furthermore, since the organization whom the complainant works for has Vodacom as a service provider for all officials at the department, the matter at hand and the non response was escalated. Seemingly this did not gain any traction with respect to the complaint.

The writer hereof continued to receive several electronic correspondences about "unusual or high usage on your mobile ***x which is outside of the limits set within your acceptable usage profile. Your mobile has been flagged and will be reviewed internally. Should you have any queries regarding this please contact your mobile department". Numerous phone calls to Vodacom had proven futile as either the complainant was placed on hold for close to two hours or the call cuts off upon reaching a consultant. Another email was received stating, "You have exceeded your Total Data spend call limit on ***xx. Your line will be soft locked. Please refer to your monthly bill. For queries call 082111 free from your Vodacom cellphone". Once again, several calls to the service provider, Vodacom proved futile for the above mentioned reasons. The complainant was left with zero balance despite not utilizing her cellular; airtime and data bundles which would suddenly deplete. Upon calling Vodacom again she was constantly referred to a chain of other consultants. Instead of resolving the matter, the responsibility was constantly transferred to different departments, notwithstanding the fact that they were privy to the fact that the complainants cellular was wrongfully and *******ly soft-locked as according to their system the number ***xx belonged to a completely different customer on contract. The complainant had explained on several occasions to the various consultants that she had been unfairly prejudiced due to the negligence and possible ***** on the part of the offending parties; the plight of the writer hereof was not escalated or taken seriously and simply brushed off as a system error as user ***xx utilized an old discarded Vodacom number of ***xx as an alternate number. As a result of the aforegoing the writer’s rights were severely, unfairly prejudiced, the writer suffered great inconvenience as a professional person (the cellular is on business) and the service or lack thereof from Vodacom is rather disconcerting and shocking. Vodacom had informed via sms that “your alternate number for notifications has been deleted” and thereafter Vodacom advised that “the profile has been updated”.

The writer hereof requested a full investigation of the matter, an indication as to whether there has been any security breach since as government officials cellulars hold sensitive and confidential business information in additional to personal and financial information. The outcome of the investigations should be reduced to an investigation report in writing. The matter was escalated to the Department who has several contract with Vodacom as a service provider.

As a last and final attempt at settlement the complainant approached the Vodacom manager for assistance on even date, 21 May 2019. The manager and his colleagues disappeared "investigating" the matter. Upon enquiring as to the ********** user, management was very reluctant to disclose any further details waving the POPI Act as a defense to access to information. The complainant pleaded with the manager to at least confirm that the additional number is not hers, the manager became very volatile at which point voices were raised, the manager was interrupting the complainant while she was conversing and talking and whilst she was attempting to clarify the request for information. The complainant clarified that as an attorney she is well conversant with the quoted Act and that all she requires from Vodacom is proof of the cell number/s against her name as same is required by the Police for further investigations. The manager was very unhelpful and stated that if the complainant wants proof of the accounts or cell numbers against her name it would have to follow an "application" process and yelled that the Police services must approach them for the information. The manager went off on a tangent even stating that as a lawyer the complainant ought to know the ACT. The complainant repeated that that she had been requested by the Police to get the required information and that the request was a simple request at which point the manager repeated that there is procedure to follow to get the information requested. The manager did sate, "Do not put words in my mouth" when the complainant repeated on several occasions that the information can be printed from the profile and that someone had opened a Vodacom account against her name according to ITC tantamount to identity theft, this did not sway the position of the manager. After much pleading, interruptions from the manager and raised voices the manager finally provided the requested information which proves that only one cell number is against her name.

It is rather concerning that serious complaints are not taken seriously and the innocent party becomes a victim to the perpetrators of crime.