Omega Tactical Distributors
3|2 reviews
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg
1 reviews | Active since Member
11 Feb 2026, 16:18
UPDATE: R284,002 Paid in Full — Still No Complete Delivery After 2+ Months
This is an update to my original review posted in January 2026. Original position: We paid R284,002.00 in full (December 2025) for tactical uniforms and boots based on Quote #7814, which included "Free Delivery — R0.00" and a purchase order specifying delivery by 15 December 2025. Since my original review: On 8 January 2026, Omega Tactical Distributors issued a formal letter unilaterally restructuring the order into two consignments — a change never agreed to. The letter stated that uniforms were "in transit between internal company facilities" for quality control, but refused to provide a waybill number. Boots were made available for collection at our cost via Courier Guy — contradicting the "Free Delivery" on the original quote. The letter also claimed that the delivery date on our purchase order was merely a suggestion made by our representative, not a commitment from Omega — despite it being documented on the signed purchase order. Following my HelloPeter review, I received correspondence threatening defamation proceedings and demanding the review be withdrawn. HelloPeter investigated and the review remains published. A formal letter of demand was sent via our advocate. No response has been received. Complaints were filed with both the National Consumer Commission (NCC) and the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud (CGSO). As of today, 11 February 2026, the matter remains unresolved. We are seeking either full delivery as originally quoted or a complete refund of R284,002.00. All documentation — quote, purchase order, proof of payment, correspondence, advocate's demand letter — is available for verification.
Helpful (0)
Replies (56)0
Replies (56)CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's updateReviewer Update
11 Feb 2026, 19:42 A correction: My previous update stated that no response was received to our advocate's letter of demand. This was inaccurate and I take responsibility for that. Responses were received. However, no substantive response leading to fair resolution — being either delivery as quoted or a refund of R284,002.00 — has been received. In the interest of full transparency, I am publishing the most recent correspondence from Omega Tactical Distributors below, in full and unedited, so that the public may read both positions and draw their own conclusions.
Mr Roos states: " For clarity and formal record:
2.Alleged Delivery by 15 December 2025 Your client’s Purchase Order dated 28 November 2025 reflects a proposed delivery date of 15 December 2025. At no stage did Omega Tactical Distributors sign, confirm, or accept in writing that 15 December 2025 constituted a guaranteed delivery date. Full payment was only effected on or about 23 December 2025. Your client’s own Purchase Order expressly states: “Goods shall only be supp**** and released once full payment obligation has been fulfilled and reflected in the supplier’s account.” It is therefore legally inconsistent to allege non-delivery by 15 December 2025 when payment had not yet been made by that date. The HelloPeter post omits this material fact.
3."Delivery – R0.00” Line Item The quotation reflects a single entry: Delivery – R0.00 This line item:
4.Statement: “Still No Complete Delivery” All completed goods have been available for collection. Where sizing specifications were outstanding, repeated written requests were sent requesting the necessary information. These communications are recorded. There has been no refusal to deliver goods. There is a dispute regarding responsibility for courier costs.
5. Continued Public and Third-Party Conduct In addition to the public HelloPeter publication, we are aware of direct contact made with third-party business associates of the undersigned, during which further allegations were communicated. Publication of demonstrably inaccurate statements, particularly where capable of harming business reputation and commercial relationships, is a serious matter. We formally request:
1. Correction or withdrawal of the inaccurate statements. 2. Immediate cessation of third-party communications concerning this dispute. 3. That all future communication proceed strictly through legal representatives."
My response to the points raised: 1. "No response received" — Corrected above. Responses were received. None have addressed the core demand for delivery as quoted or a refund. 2. "15 December was not a guaranteed delivery date" — The delivery date appears on the purchase order that Omega accepted payment against. If the terms of that purchase order were not accepted, why was payment accepted? 3. "Delivery R0.00 specifies no address, no transport method, no geographic scope" — The quote was issued by Omega in response to our specific order requirements. A delivery line item of R0.00 on a commercial quote is a term of the agreement. If Omega intended collection-only or conditional delivery, this should have been stated at the time of quoting — not after R284,002.00 was paid in full. 4. "All completed goods have been available for collection" — At our courier cost. Which contradicts the R0.00 delivery on the original quote. This is the core of the dispute. 5. "Third-party contact" and "defamation" — I have exercised my right as a consumer to share a factual account of this transaction. HelloPeter investigated my original review and it remains published. All documentation — quote, purchase order, proof of payment, and correspondence — remains available for verification
Mr Roos states: " For clarity and formal record:
- Allegation: “No response received from supplier”
- To your correspondence dated Friday,
- Again on Tuesday,
- And further communication was sent this morning addressing additional conduct involving third-party contact.
2.Alleged Delivery by 15 December 2025 Your client’s Purchase Order dated 28 November 2025 reflects a proposed delivery date of 15 December 2025. At no stage did Omega Tactical Distributors sign, confirm, or accept in writing that 15 December 2025 constituted a guaranteed delivery date. Full payment was only effected on or about 23 December 2025. Your client’s own Purchase Order expressly states: “Goods shall only be supp**** and released once full payment obligation has been fulfilled and reflected in the supplier’s account.” It is therefore legally inconsistent to allege non-delivery by 15 December 2025 when payment had not yet been made by that date. The HelloPeter post omits this material fact.
3."Delivery – R0.00” Line Item The quotation reflects a single entry: Delivery – R0.00 This line item:
- Specifies no address,
- Specifies no transport method,
- Specifies no geographic scope,
- Was not expanded upon in any signed agreement,
- Was never reaffirmed in subsequent written communication.
4.Statement: “Still No Complete Delivery” All completed goods have been available for collection. Where sizing specifications were outstanding, repeated written requests were sent requesting the necessary information. These communications are recorded. There has been no refusal to deliver goods. There is a dispute regarding responsibility for courier costs.
5. Continued Public and Third-Party Conduct In addition to the public HelloPeter publication, we are aware of direct contact made with third-party business associates of the undersigned, during which further allegations were communicated. Publication of demonstrably inaccurate statements, particularly where capable of harming business reputation and commercial relationships, is a serious matter. We formally request:
1. Correction or withdrawal of the inaccurate statements. 2. Immediate cessation of third-party communications concerning this dispute. 3. That all future communication proceed strictly through legal representatives."
My response to the points raised: 1. "No response received" — Corrected above. Responses were received. None have addressed the core demand for delivery as quoted or a refund. 2. "15 December was not a guaranteed delivery date" — The delivery date appears on the purchase order that Omega accepted payment against. If the terms of that purchase order were not accepted, why was payment accepted? 3. "Delivery R0.00 specifies no address, no transport method, no geographic scope" — The quote was issued by Omega in response to our specific order requirements. A delivery line item of R0.00 on a commercial quote is a term of the agreement. If Omega intended collection-only or conditional delivery, this should have been stated at the time of quoting — not after R284,002.00 was paid in full. 4. "All completed goods have been available for collection" — At our courier cost. Which contradicts the R0.00 delivery on the original quote. This is the core of the dispute. 5. "Third-party contact" and "defamation" — I have exercised my right as a consumer to share a factual account of this transaction. HelloPeter investigated my original review and it remains published. All documentation — quote, purchase order, proof of payment, and correspondence — remains available for verification
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's update11 Feb 2026, 19:42
Reviewer Update
A correction: My previous update stated that no response was received to our advocate's letter of demand. This was inaccurate and I take responsibility for that. Responses were received. However, no substantive response leading to fair resolution — being either delivery as quoted or a refund of R284,002.00 — has been received. In the interest of full transparency, I am publishing the most recent correspondence from Omega Tactical Distributors below, in full and unedited, so that the public may read both positions and draw their own conclusions.
Mr Roos states: " For clarity and formal record:
2.Alleged Delivery by 15 December 2025 Your client’s Purchase Order dated 28 November 2025 reflects a proposed delivery date of 15 December 2025. At no stage did Omega Tactical Distributors sign, confirm, or accept in writing that 15 December 2025 constituted a guaranteed delivery date. Full payment was only effected on or about 23 December 2025. Your client’s own Purchase Order expressly states: “Goods shall only be supp**** and released once full payment obligation has been fulfilled and reflected in the supplier’s account.” It is therefore legally inconsistent to allege non-delivery by 15 December 2025 when payment had not yet been made by that date. The HelloPeter post omits this material fact.
3."Delivery – R0.00” Line Item The quotation reflects a single entry: Delivery – R0.00 This line item:
4.Statement: “Still No Complete Delivery” All completed goods have been available for collection. Where sizing specifications were outstanding, repeated written requests were sent requesting the necessary information. These communications are recorded. There has been no refusal to deliver goods. There is a dispute regarding responsibility for courier costs.
5. Continued Public and Third-Party Conduct In addition to the public HelloPeter publication, we are aware of direct contact made with third-party business associates of the undersigned, during which further allegations were communicated. Publication of demonstrably inaccurate statements, particularly where capable of harming business reputation and commercial relationships, is a serious matter. We formally request:
1. Correction or withdrawal of the inaccurate statements. 2. Immediate cessation of third-party communications concerning this dispute. 3. That all future communication proceed strictly through legal representatives."
My response to the points raised: 1. "No response received" — Corrected above. Responses were received. None have addressed the core demand for delivery as quoted or a refund. 2. "15 December was not a guaranteed delivery date" — The delivery date appears on the purchase order that Omega accepted payment against. If the terms of that purchase order were not accepted, why was payment accepted? 3. "Delivery R0.00 specifies no address, no transport method, no geographic scope" — The quote was issued by Omega in response to our specific order requirements. A delivery line item of R0.00 on a commercial quote is a term of the agreement. If Omega intended collection-only or conditional delivery, this should have been stated at the time of quoting — not after R284,002.00 was paid in full. 4. "All completed goods have been available for collection" — At our courier cost. Which contradicts the R0.00 delivery on the original quote. This is the core of the dispute. 5. "Third-party contact" and "defamation" — I have exercised my right as a consumer to share a factual account of this transaction. HelloPeter investigated my original review and it remains published. All documentation — quote, purchase order, proof of payment, and correspondence — remains available for verification
Mr Roos states: " For clarity and formal record:
- Allegation: “No response received from supplier”
- To your correspondence dated Friday,
- Again on Tuesday,
- And further communication was sent this morning addressing additional conduct involving third-party contact.
2.Alleged Delivery by 15 December 2025 Your client’s Purchase Order dated 28 November 2025 reflects a proposed delivery date of 15 December 2025. At no stage did Omega Tactical Distributors sign, confirm, or accept in writing that 15 December 2025 constituted a guaranteed delivery date. Full payment was only effected on or about 23 December 2025. Your client’s own Purchase Order expressly states: “Goods shall only be supp**** and released once full payment obligation has been fulfilled and reflected in the supplier’s account.” It is therefore legally inconsistent to allege non-delivery by 15 December 2025 when payment had not yet been made by that date. The HelloPeter post omits this material fact.
3."Delivery – R0.00” Line Item The quotation reflects a single entry: Delivery – R0.00 This line item:
- Specifies no address,
- Specifies no transport method,
- Specifies no geographic scope,
- Was not expanded upon in any signed agreement,
- Was never reaffirmed in subsequent written communication.
4.Statement: “Still No Complete Delivery” All completed goods have been available for collection. Where sizing specifications were outstanding, repeated written requests were sent requesting the necessary information. These communications are recorded. There has been no refusal to deliver goods. There is a dispute regarding responsibility for courier costs.
5. Continued Public and Third-Party Conduct In addition to the public HelloPeter publication, we are aware of direct contact made with third-party business associates of the undersigned, during which further allegations were communicated. Publication of demonstrably inaccurate statements, particularly where capable of harming business reputation and commercial relationships, is a serious matter. We formally request:
1. Correction or withdrawal of the inaccurate statements. 2. Immediate cessation of third-party communications concerning this dispute. 3. That all future communication proceed strictly through legal representatives."
My response to the points raised: 1. "No response received" — Corrected above. Responses were received. None have addressed the core demand for delivery as quoted or a refund. 2. "15 December was not a guaranteed delivery date" — The delivery date appears on the purchase order that Omega accepted payment against. If the terms of that purchase order were not accepted, why was payment accepted? 3. "Delivery R0.00 specifies no address, no transport method, no geographic scope" — The quote was issued by Omega in response to our specific order requirements. A delivery line item of R0.00 on a commercial quote is a term of the agreement. If Omega intended collection-only or conditional delivery, this should have been stated at the time of quoting — not after R284,002.00 was paid in full. 4. "All completed goods have been available for collection" — At our courier cost. Which contradicts the R0.00 delivery on the original quote. This is the core of the dispute. 5. "Third-party contact" and "defamation" — I have exercised my right as a consumer to share a factual account of this transaction. HelloPeter investigated my original review and it remains published. All documentation — quote, purchase order, proof of payment, and correspondence — remains available for verification