Vodacom ******** charges

Date: 25 January 2018 Ref: Vodacom- I **********

Dear Messr/s TS Legal & Vodacom,

1. With reference to your earlier correspondences and statements forwarded during the months November and December 2017.

2. We have had proper opportunity to look at the allegations made in the correspondences forwarded and received from your entity. It appears that your alleged client Vodacom has in fact been overpaid and are indebted to me personally in the amount of R1341.60. This amount was ********ly charged and received.

3. In this regard I wish to place the following on record for ease of convenience, together with the most recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgments supporting the underlying principles:

Background Synopsis:

4. During or about 7 May 2012 I entered into cellular contract agreement with Vodacom under account number I ********** . This contract should be in your possession.

5. In terms of the contract the account limit at all material times had to be capped and limited to a maximum amount of R4000,00. 6. On or about October 2012 I received a cellular data account in respect of a mobile telephone account with telephone number ********** 525 held under account number I ********** . The amount raised was that of approximately R18 000,00. The account was mainly for alleged data usage. I immediately lodged a dispute regarding excessive data charges on my account with Vodacom at the time.

7. I pause to state, that it is simply impossible that my account for all other months was charged at approximately R2500,00 and all of a sudden escalated to R18 000,00.

8. From October 2012 I directed numerous queries to Vodacom (of which I have full record) requesting information and clarification on this account. 9. In my correspondence with Vodacom I required the October 2012 account to be investigated and the veracity of the data charges to be tested – I even asked if another cellular company could be contacted to test and investigate the authenticity of the data charges whereupon Vodacom merely stated “the charges are correct” – leaving me as Consumer without any form of recourse or resolve.

10. After numerous unsuccessful attempts to resolve the matter - During early September 2013 I proceeded to refer the matter to the Consumer Commission, but before a response from the Commission was received I was contacted by VVM Inc, the attorneys acting on behalf of Vodacom and forwarded a letter of demand.

11. I responded to VVM Inc in e-mail correspondence dated 24 October 2013. In the correspondence I informed that the matter has been referred to the Consumer Commission. I also forwarded to the attorneys all correspondence exchanged between me and their client. All the documentation in this regard is available for inspection and can be made available upon request and payment for copies tendered.

12. Shortly thereafter on or about 3 December 2013, and without further ado Vodacom itself (not through its attorneys) sent a letter of demand threatening termination (“the termination letter”) of the cellular agreement on the basis that in their view the charges are correct and should be paid. The second document attached is the letter of termination received – see paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 thereof. 13. I pause, at this juncture, to explain that at this point in time the matter was still pending at the Consumer Commission and Vodacom simply elected to disregard all process adopted a draconian attitude and simply bulldozed forward.

14. In the termination letter, Vodacom demanded that a settlement amount of R 70 000,00 be paid on or before 9 December 2013, failing which and amount consisting of two components R 59 422.26 (the arrears alleged) and an amount of R 21 817.44 payable in respect of the whole unexpired contract period became immediately payable. The total amount charged was the amount of R 81 239.70. Note that in this regard no breakdown or explanation was forthcoming on how the amounts were made up. This is a direct contravention of section 15(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, Act 68 of 2008 (“the CPA”).

15. To date hereof no calculation of the amounts set out in the letter of demand has been provided, nor was it explained. This issue is of crucial importance as the amounts charged was in clear contravention of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act which was in full force at the time, specifically section 14(3) thereof which provides as follows:

(3) Upon cancellation of a consumer agreement as contemplated in subsection (1)(b) (a) the consumer remains liable to the supplier for any amounts owed to the supplier in terms of that agreement up to the date of cancellation; and (b) the supplier – (i) may impose a reasonable cancellation penalty with respect to any goods supp****, service provided, or discount granted, to the consume in contemplation of the agreement enduring for its intended fixed term, if ant; and (ii) must credit the consumer with any amount that remains the property of the consumer as of the date of cancellation, as prescribed in terms of subsection (4)

16. In terms of the statutory principals Vodacom at best could have been entitled to a reasonable cancelation fee, unbilled and outstanding invoices at time of cancellation and the balance owing on the devices. This however have never been provided for. From the total amount charged it is clear that the amount of R81 239.70 constitute a complete overcharge to which Vodacom could never lawfully have been entitled to.

17. Upon disputes raised - I was merely threatened that I would be blacklisted if I don’t pay the amount, this is further evident from the content of paragraph which reads as follows: “On receipt of the payment of R70 000,00, Vodacom will instruct the Credit Bureau to remove the adverse listing from its records”.

18. On or about 6 December 2013 the attorneys firm VVM Inc sent e-mail correspondence to me and informed that they are no longer appearing on behalf of Vodacom and that I must from thereon forth deal with the client directly. In this regard see attachment one to this e-mail. The only reasonable assumption that could be made is that VVM Inc advised Vodacom against proceeding with claiming the monies in the manner done and that they were then removed as attorneys.

19. Throughout the year 2014 I personally (directly) had contact with Vodacom regarding the dispute. I have all correspondence available in this regard as well.

20. During or about November 2014 and in order to avoid being blacklisted I agreed to enter into an agreement with Vodacom directly for payment of the amounts claimed. I pause, to emphasize that the entity TS Legal was in no manner whatsoever involved in the concluding of the agreement. I did not even know of the existence of the entity. The first time that I ever became aware of the existence of this company was during or about June 2016.

21. Per the new agreement entered into with Vodacom, which agreement replaced in totality the earlier cellular contract, I had to pay the amount of R81 239,70 in monthly instalment of R2000,00 until fully paid up to Vodacom directly. I was furnished with the banking details into which payment had to be made by Vodacom (not by any other company).

22. At the time of entering into the agreement, I was never informed that an agent (namely TS Legal) was acting as a collection agent on behalf of Vodacom nor was this agent was entering into an agreement on its behalf. This alleged agent did not even have records of the correspondences and information exchanged in respect of the agreement and I had to furnish it on numerous occasions (more than 10 times) with the documentation.

23. I was never informed of, nor did I ever agree to any collection fees or commissions would be deducted from the monthly payment whatsoever towards a collection agent.

******** Collection Fees Charged:

24. On or about June 2016, I received correspondence from one Olga McKay from an entity described as TSLS Holdings. The e-mail was incorrectly sent to my mother who forwarded same to me. The e-mail correspondence is in your possession and copies can be made available upon payment tendered.

25. The aforesaid e-mail contained a payment schedule setting out payments made to Vodacom per my agreement reached with them.

26. Much to my shock and surprize the statement from this entity known as TS Legal Services or TSLS Holdings or TS Telecom (there are different company names as can be seen from the correspondence attached – (referred to as “TS Legal” jointly) deducting an amount of R228 monthly as their collection fees. I intimated that I do not recognise this entity and that I did not consent to any funds ever being payable to them.

27. I have disputed these collection charges or any form of agreement entered or consented to by me with them. This however fell on deaf ears and they merely proceeded with debiting their charges. I attach this statement as the third attachment hereto. It is clear that they still proceeded to deduct these charges.

28. I demanded to be furnished with the registration documentation of TS Legal at the National Credit Regulator but was informed that they act as collection agents and that the National Credit Act and Consumer Protection Act do not apply All information in this regard can be made available against payment tendered and made. 29. In addition, I demanded to be forwarded the agreement upon which they re**** for purposes of charging these collection fees. On 5 August 2016, I was then forwarded an alleged hand over letter dated 13 July 2016 from Vodacom in terms of which they allegedly authorise TS Legal to act on their behalf. I emphasize that this alleged authorisation is approximately two years after I concluded the agreement with Vodacom.

30. I unequivocally state that the alleged collection fees deducted was never part of the agreement entered into and such fees have further in the recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment of statutorily ******** In this regard I refer to the recent judgment of Barko Financial Services (Pty) Ltd v National Credit Regulator and another [2014] 4 All SA 411 (SCA) been declared ******** and in contradiction with the Consumer Protection Act, even if a consumer was induced and consented thereto which prohibit the inducing of any service fees or commissions induced by supplementary agreements (which is not the case in the present matter as no agreement was ever entered into).

31. Two distinct scenarios are to be considered at present. They are as follows:

31.1. The first is a calculation based on the version put forward by TS Legal on behalf of Vodacom (read with applicable legal principals); and 31.2. The second is a calculation based on the principals of the CPA; and Reasonable Cancellation Charges per the directions followed by the Courts.

First Scenario:

32. In this regard reference is made to the breakdown provided by one Rabia Stuurman from TS Legal, and the version put up by Vodacom and TS Legal. It provides as follows:

33. The outstanding capital from inception is indicated as R78 909.64; 34. The amounts received to date of breakdown is an amount of R 66 000,00; 35. From the R66 000,00 TS Legal deducts an amount of R7646.90 for purposes of collection commission and other charges (unknown charges); 36. It even goes as far as to charge an amount of R535.90 for “coll com forecasts” whatever that might mean; 37. None of these amounts have been disclosed to me, agreed to be paid by me, or ever discussed. The charges are ********l in its entirety. 38. In addition – to date no breakdown of the hardware costs have been provided. 39. The position as gleaned from the authorities is that hardware is charged 40. The Estimated “New Hardware Prices” at the time of cancellation of the contract are as follows: 40.1. Estimated price of MacBook Air 2012: R13 999,99; 40.2. Estimated price of iPhone 4S I 2012: R7500,00; 40.3. Estimated price of HP Pavillion G series 2012: R7889,00; 40.4. Blackberry Curve 9350: R 2000,00; 40.5. Total of approximately: R 31 398,00 as opposed to R59422,26. difference of R28 024,26 (unaccounted);

41. In the best possible scenario for TS Legal/Vodacom – Hardware costs amounting to R31 398,00 could have been charged.

42. Based on its own calculations an amount of R 28 024.26 should be deducted from the total amount of R78 909.64, leaving a total amount of R 50 885,38 payable.

43. In addition, no commission, collection or any charges whatsoever have been agreed to. In this regard I refer to the matter of THE NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR v EDCON – Case no: NCT/*** (1). These charges are ******** and should be removed from my statement as a consumer that did not agree to or were never informed or requested to consent to. It is ******** and should be struck with immediate effect.

44. Taking into consideration the scenario per the facts provided by TS Legal – on its own version, and the statutory provisions per section 14(3) and 14(4) of the CPA, applicable to the calculation of payment of hardware upon contract cancellation, Vodacom has to date been overpaid in the amount of R 15 114,62. 45. WHEREFORE – Immediate reimbur*****t of the amount of R15 114,62 is claimed.

Scenario 2:

46. This relates to calculations based on legal principles applicable to cancelled contract as regulated by the CPA.

47. Once again per the provisions of section 14 of the CPA - The Estimated “New Hardware Prices” could only be charged as that applicable at the exact time of cancellation of the contract and are as follows: 47.1. Estimated price of MacBook Air 2012: R13 999,99; 47.2. Estimated price of iPhone 4S I 2012: R7500,00; 47.3. Estimated price of HP Pavillion G series 2012: R7889,00; 47.4. Blackberry Curve 9350: R 2000,00;

48. Total of approximately: R 31 398,00 as opposed to R59422,26 difference of R28 024,26 (unaccounted);

Charges imposed for Unexpired Contract:

49. The information reflected on my bank statements for the period May 2012 to November 2012 (prior to the R18000,00 invoice sent) – is an approximate amount of R2500,00 monthly. 50. The unexpired contract period since date of cancellation i.e 3 December 2013 is the period between 3 December 2013 and 7 May 2014. A period of 5 months.

51. Between the period of November 2012 to December 2013 I had only use of the devices and all cellular services were unilaterally suspended by Vodacom as a result of my refusal to pay a contested bill of R18 000,00.

52. The reasonable contract cancellation penalty could be no more than 2 months – which would render an amount of approximately R5000,00 payable at best.

53. As a result – an amount of R 31 389,00 for all devices based, and an amount of R5000,00 as payment of the unexpired period of 4 month would render a maximum amount of R36 389, 00 payable.

54. Payment of R66 000,00 have been made to Vodacom.

55. In the result Vodacom have been overpaid in the amount of R 29 611,00 being overpaid.

56. WHEREFORE the amount of R29 611,00 is claimed, payment to be made with immediate effect.

57. Payment is therefore demanded from your client in the amount of R29 611,00 alternatively an amount of R15 114,62, the shortfall to be referred to the Consumer Tribunal for purposes of adjudication.

58. Should payment not be received within a period of 7 days from date hereof – the matter will be referred to the Consumer Tribunal for adjudication and punitive measures sought to be instituted against both your entity and Vodacom respectively.

59. In furtherance to the above I also reserve my rights to approach the High Court of South Africa for any damage claims arising from the wilful misconduct of Vodacom and ******** conduct of TS Legal. 60. I look forward to receiving payment into the following bank account:

It has been provided on email.

61. I trust that you find the above in order and look forward to receiving payment. Please forward the necessary proof.