Publications
Partners
I have also read with interest some of the legal opinions expressed regarding the Vodacom price debacle, and want to add a few thoughts as a consumer, not a legal expert. But since these contracts are a "civil" matter; opinion, expectations, performance and promise form a big part of them being ultimately valid or not. At least that is my thought. And off course we all know that "legal" doesn't always equal right.
Win, lose or draw, I just submitted new complaints to National Credit Regulator, ICASA, Advertizing Standards Authority, and the Consumer Protector. I say new as I submitted complaints regarding the price increase process before. But when I tried to limit my exposure, raise my protest practically, I have found a few more issues I need to be attended to. That doesn't even include the incorrect billings and having been charged for a device I don't have. But they cant help with that since their systems are off line and have been experiencing greater than usual call volumes.
To me Vodacom markets themselves on "contracts" and the tag line "more power to you", where as that clearly is not the case when they try to limit consumer rights at all points. Leaving consumers caught in a untenable trap. I.e. they offer, you accept, they change it, you have no choice - or very curtailed choice.
For example if you want to cancel, they don't accept a return to the status quo - which would be the case if there is clearly no meeting of the minds and their behavior is outside of what is reasonable consumer expectation- No they just bill you and expect payment. hiding behind policy, systems issues and threat of action.
I have three main complaints,
1 - The contracted rates price increase, when it was advertised at a fixed rate. The practice is that it has been a common practice for 20 + years to reduce costs, given the overall cost reductions. To me, the benefit they get for my fixed fee commitment is certainty, and that goes both ways. I don't believe consumers signed up for an increase risk, as reason-ability assumes a practice reducing costs, and hence the T&C to amend pricing (I.E. downwards). Further more it is a time bound contract so signing for 2 years I believe it is reasonable to assume they included inflation assumptions.
So to me the contract increases are probably illegal and definitely unethical . No matter what T&C they quote (which they can change at will). If there is no meeting of minds, there is no contract. What they they are in effect saying is that they can sell you something month 1, and then increase unilaterally in month 2 and you would have no recourse - there is no meeting of minds in that. No bargain.
2 - Furthermore Vodacom refuses to limit my accounts to the contracted about, i.e. soft lock at R0 zar (which I requested as form of protest to the unilateral price increases) simply saying it's a policy limitation (R50 or R100 depending on account), and to make it worse Vodacom has the technology to limit accounts to the contract amount, not doing so and not allowing customer to do so is just pilfering more money using the systems as an excuse. Especially when many accounts can lock to limit.
For me that looks like it's a matter of Vodacom policy and not system driven, hence they are deliberately exploiting the policy to milk consumers under threat for non payment.
I could almost guarantee that they budget and plan on the "over spend' of consumers meaning, to me at least, that in practice, and in the private dark corners, they condone the action fully, with little regard or appreciation for the consumer impact.
3. Despite having a soft lock limit set , Vodacom ended up charging me 5x the soft lock limit claiming a further system's limitation. Now some of my other accounts cuts out to the point on its contract (eg prepaid or top up), so to me once again it looks like they are discriminating against contract accounts and using the money to subsidize the business. In their own response they say they treat them separately, but since they are one company that is a ruse and once again hiding behind policy and not answering the questions.
The soft locks are instructions and contracts as well, but they chose to ignore it and do nothing about it when they fail. No, their failure is at the consumers cost - that to me is negligence and not fair. Further more this situation has been ongoing for a number of years from what I recall. At the same time they claim to be investing so much in their network, but they cant "fix" this simple customer issue?
Please pull the other one Vodacom, you have no incentive to fix it. And dont say "everybody does it". Besides if you really wanted to, and you really actually cared when your system is at fault, then you could bring forward data from the next month on a rolling basis, not just charge at 7 x the contract rate for out of contract usage. O and you could send SMS live, not hours after a session has closed, and yes you can stop data mid download, should your limit be reached. Please dont claim customer inconvenience. If I wanted it lifted, I can call the call center or top up. That just seems like a convenient excuse to not do something about it.
The net of it all is that Vodacom contracts people into a corner and then can make changes to terms and conditions, the systems, with no recourse to consumers. With cancellation, for many, not being a viable option as Vodacom simply and substantively charges the consumer for the remainder of the "contract", Despite not incurring a effective loss. I.e they charge for a service they wont be rendering.
I believe there should be an option to return devices and terminate with no further cost to the consumer, accepting that in these cases there was no meeting of the minds and the status quo should be returned to what it was before the sham of an agreement was entered into. That at least is my opinion, and not one shared by big brother Vodacom's tactics.
The real question is what are you doing to make your point to Vodacom about this?
