TF
Tanya FouchAA(C)
Active since Jul 2011
7
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
7 reviews56 months ago
Fake Delivery Details CHANGED BY TAKEALOT _ FRAUD REPORT
This is a fraud report of Takealot. Their staff is trying to steal my goods. Someone within Takealot has changed the delivery address of my order to an address which is not even listed as any of my current or previous delivery addresses. On three occasions, they have requested me to confirm the delivery address. And when I asked what this game is about to keep asking me from all different personal constantly all the time (one message even threatened that my order will be cancelled if I do not respond to confirm my delivery address within 24 hours!), yet another staff member responds and confirms that the delivery is now being rerouted to an address in the neighbouring city of the one which appears on my order ticket! I am absolutely disgusted at this FRAUD by Takealot.
53 replies
62 months ago
Western Cape Rental Housing Tribunal's bully tactics on a landlord, fending only for a former tenant who broke the contractual agreement and caused financial loss to landlords
I am disgusted at the Rental Housing Tribunal's bullying tactics to ensure that a landlord refunds rightfully, legally and fully proven deposit deductions to a tenant. Does the Rental Housing Tribunal's fending for the former tenant who allege unfairness mean that the Rental Housing Tribunal agrees to it that a tenant can take from a landlord what is not legally theirs? When a tenant does not comply to the contractual agreement, and causes financial loss to the landlord, howcome the Rental Housing Tribunal fend for the rights of a tenant to take from a landlord what is legally worked in to the rental agreement to protect the landlord? Who is the Rental Housing Tribunal to pull the buffer of the protection away from the landlord, and to fend for the thief? If a tenant alleges unfairness, where a landlord has rightfully deducted from the deposit repayment money due to financial losses caused to the landlord by the tenant, what kind of a body is the Rental Housing Tribunal? A state supported bully body! There is no other description for it. If we are speaking about an understanding of business, and an understanding of fair contractual agreements, the Rental Housing Tribunal's lack of insight into both these concepts are not even possible to be attributed to incompetence, it is to be addressed to bully tactics. The Rental Housing Tribunal has made itself guilty of foul play. I mention two examples of their bully tactics. Where a landlord can prove financial loss, in combination with the legally binding signed enter and exit inspections by the tenants, and in accordance with a deposit statement which is on par with the rental contract, it is the landlord's right to withhold a partial or full deposit return. Why does the law make provision for landlords' rental contracts to charge a deposit, if the Rental Housing Tribunal is appointed to simply **** on a landlord's head, intimidate a landlord, and use low class bully tactics to stand on the defend the tenant who can cry the loudest and harass the most intimidatingly? If the South African government is against anyone and everyone who operates contractual agreements based on fair practice assumptions in the country, then we are dealing with a major problem on the lack of understanding the meaning of fair practice. It is not fair contractual agreement practice, when the Rental Housing Tribunal is allowed to bully the landlord, and fight for a full deposit return, while solid grounds for partial deposit deduction to a tenant's deposit return was legally made, to compensate for the landlord's financial loss due to a tenant's conduct. Consider this case: The landlord's deposit statement provided to the former tenant a full overview of deductions to the deposit. The deposit refund statement was provided within the timeline of 14 days after the end of the rental period's end, in accordance with the contractual agreement, and the inspection occasions conducted on the entry and exit period of the inhabitants. The Rental Housing Tribunal's bullying tactics have been experienced by the landlord as follows: A prior tenant reported the landlord's well motivated and grounded deposit deductions (as per tenants' signed entry and exit inspection lists) as allegedly "unfair" to the Rental Housing Tribunal. The case came to the landlord's attention through the Rental Housing Tribunal's email contact. The landlord requested the complainant's full statement from the Rental Housing Tribunal, and the landlord agreed to communicate with the Rental Housing Tribunal only, since any good standing with the former tenant had been broken down by acts conducted by his children who stayed in the landlord's apartment, as well as the contractual holder's own actions. It is a well known problem that Stellenbosch parents, for the most, believe their children are angels - this is evident in many schools' struggles with parents' attitudes towards teachers. The child is mos never in the wrong. Here the case holds too, where the landlord's inhabitants have blatantly disrespected the contractual agreement on certain points. For example, the former tenant's son requested the landlord, to provide permission to leave his couch behind on the premises. This request was denied by the landlord in a private whatsapp message. (The contract states loud and clear that the exit date is when all a tenant's private belongings are removed from the premises.) The son ignored the instruction by the landlord to remove his private property from the landlord's property, left it outside the apartment's front door and thereby blatantly disrespected not only the contract which states that no personal belongings are allowed to stay behind on the property, but also a personal communication note in which it was confirmed due for removal once again. On another occasion the son has pressured the landlord to call in a plumber. On careful inquiry by the landlord on step by step check points which the landlord conducted, the tenant's son had no patience and pressured the landlord to call in a plumber on the landlord's account. Once the inspection into the problem turned out that the tenants themselves turned off the water supply to the washing machine and dishwasher. The landlord had to take a beating for their fault, be pressured to spend money on what had nothing to do with the landlord, be pressured to spend time and energy on the tenants' mistake, with no apology to follow from the the landlord from the son when it became evident that the fault was due to his own to do. Furthermore to the couch which the son left behind on the property upon the exit date, the inspection list stated that the apartment block's remote was withheld for return from one keys' set. This trust break went along with the former tenant's threat to the landlord not to pay the last month's rent at an occassion prior to the last months' rental payment due date. Occasions such as the above, where tenants not only request to disobey the contractual agreement by a sideline conversation, but blatantly ignores the communicated confirmation that the contractual agreement remains binding, goes against the contractual agreement's purpose. And clearly it is the very purpose of the contractual agreement which the Rental Housing Tribunal also undermines with their bully tactics. Upon receiving the notice from the RHT that a former tenant has laid a complaint, the landlord requested the complainant's full documentation from the RHT, as provided to the Rental Housing Tribunal. When the requested full documentation was supplied to the (former) landlord, the landlord requested in email correspondence to the RHT for time allowance (a period of two weeks' time) to work through the documentation, and to check the authenticity of the deposit statement as supplied to the RHT by the complainant. On two ocassions to follow, the attitude of the RHT was clearly negative towards the landlord. In the first occassion, the RHT administrator insinuated a twist to the landlord's words, by asking whether the landlord meant to say that the complainant had forfeited the documents. This cannot be understood other than harassment in the form of a bully technique. The landlord was asked by the Rental Housing Tribunal's Ms Pearl Tyeku, Pearl.Tyeku@westerncape.gov.za on two email occassions whether the landlord meant that the complainant has not supplied the original documentation. What the landlord had said in the email to the RHT, was that the landlord requested time to work through the documentation, and to cross check the documents with private existing records for its authenticity, But the RHT administrator tried to pull a twisted truth out of the landlord by way of intimidation. This bully tactic, is really low. The second occassion of being bullied by the RHT, came in at the timeline of the procedures managed by the RHT. To follow the forfeit insinuation by the RHT administrator, a manager (male), whom it seems the female officer reports to, provided a timeline restriction on when the matter ought to be concluded. Since the landlord realised the stance of the RHT, and become fedup with their attitude to protect only the complainant, the landlord offered an amount of refund to the former tenant. To conclude the matter, the landlord paid an amount to the complainant which was stated to be a 'benevolence amount', i.e. a payment of goodwill. The complainant further attacked the landlord via the RHT, based on the landlord's reason provided to pay a benevolence amount to the complainant. Where were the rules of the RHT? Their communication without having rules explicated and undersigned by all parties involved, is absurd. And it acts against the data protection of anyone who gets involved in communicating with the RHT. This is not a way to act as an alleged 'mediator'. A mediator's role is not to fend for one party. In my experience, the RHT acts discriminatory towards the property owner. The Rental Housing Tribunal is not interested in justice. They are only interested in taking the stance of the one who fights the hardest, with the most bully tactics, the best harassment skills, i.e. the one who had the loudest voice to scream and the sharpest teeth to show. After paying the goodwill amount, the landlord was grinded all over again, with the RHT on the side of the tenant, refusing to back off. The RHT's own timeline deadline as stated by Mr Sithembele Tyutula Sithembele.Tyutula@westerncape.gov.za, the very timeline on which the landlord's payment of goodwill was based, was all of a sudden ignored by the RHT. What is the message that this conveys? That none of the stated 'rules' are to be kept up, i.e. that rules are made by the RTH to be changed when it suits them in their role as "mediators". That's no mediation! That's attacking the landlord who provided full cooperation, and followed the rules. It was the RHT themselves who set up the deadline date for concluding the dicsussion. The statement from Mr Tyutula still rings "that no party ought to remain in its original position". To this statement, and to his deadline date to conclude all 'discussions', the landlord adhered. When the 'discussion' was not to the satisfaction of the complainant, the RHT kept sending on the 'discussion' to the landlord - AFTER the apparent concluding deadline date. So the RHT sets deadline dates only for the landlord to adhere to, and when the complainant gains more momentum for attacking power through the statement offered by the landlord, the RHT releases the rule of the deadline date for concluding the matter for final completion. Wow! What for a bully tactic is that! The RHT ignored their own rule of the closure date to the discussions, and continued sending anew requests by the former tenant (i.e. the complainant) to the landlord. What gave the RHT the right to ignore their own rule and apply it as they please? No one can take them seriously on their 'orders'. It is an absolute shame how they conduct their administration. This change of rule by the RHT whilst in the process, I find utterly unfair. When the landlord adheres to the RHT rule, but then have the rule broken by the RHT themselves, what kind of a rule was it to start out with in the first place? Based on my above experience, I would recommend no landlord to enter into any conversation with the Rental Housing Tribunal when a tenant alleges unfair deductions. As a landlord, I am not only suffering financial loss due to the tenant's disrespect of the mutually agreed upon and signed contract which was in place, I am also suffering from ongoing harrassment by the complainant. The FULL deposit refund was supplied. Now that the deposit refund was paid in full to this man, the harrassment continues. His harrassment does not have momentum through the RHT any more, but is ongoing by threat messages to the landlord on whatsapp by unknown numbers. The RHT's bully tactic is not only a slap in the face of justice, it is also exercising the utmost disrespect for human dignity. Once the landlord paid the full deposit refund, the RHT did not even have the decency to confirm that the case had been concluded and closed. No further correspondence was provided, only silence from the RHT after all their bullying. Having been pressured into a refund on the deposit deductions, means that the former tenant has STOLEN from me as property owner. And that he is supported by the RHT to steal from the landlord. So much for fair contractual agreement practice. What is also clear about this case, is that the RHT as a government institution is uninformed of the meaning of fair practice, uninformed about what it means to carry risks in contractual agreements, and uninformed on how to act in the protection of justice and economic growth of the country.
56 replies
65 months ago
Takealot cutting its nose to spite its face - no EFT electronic payment no more!?
Takealot has taken away the EFT payment option without prior notice to its shoppers' loading their online shopping baskets. This is neither announced on the Takealot website nor on the app for shoppers to know. In the past an EFT payment to a specific Takealot bank account was possible. Their lame excuse why the option has been removed, was shoppers' mistakes of the reference codes when conducting payments. Should some mistakes of clients now be the restribution to all their clients? This is unacceptable and an example of non-creative business. Takealot is penalising its customers who cannot shop in any other way than an EFT electronic payment. Also, what kind of president does it create to have clients log in with their bank codes and passwords on a so called 'secure connection'... This is just nonsense! In my view Takealot is breaking the business contract with clients by having had the EFT electronic payment option in the past, but not announcing the removal thereof clearly to shoppers, prior to clients a) spending online shopping time and b) loading their shopping baskets. This is utter disrespect to their clients. Takealot, you are cutting your nose to spite your face. When did Takealot become so utterly stagnant and unflexible in its business operations? Once you loose the human touch, you will loose your human clients too.
0 replies
68 months ago
Turkish Airlines' Violation of Consumer Protection Laws
In mid 2019, Turkish Airlines refused me to board a plane from Cape Town to Europe. Their grounds to refuse me boarding, was because I asked for an invoice for an overweight luggage payment they demanded from me at the check-in counter. Like any business deal between a consumer and a client, proper paperwork is expected and clients have rights, especially under the consumer protection law in South Affica. They refused me an invoice for their demanded payment on overweight luggage. Instead, I was told that I should download a receipt for the transaction after payment only from their online link. I was not happy with an unfair deal and no paperwork for the payment. On my request to receive an invoice for the quoted price I was asked to pay for overweight luggage, the Turkish Airlines staff played for time and left the desk, went to print their online stipulations about luggage weight and cost per country. I said I know these online regulations! I have done my part to be informed prior to arriving to the airport. I have extensively studied these overweight stipulations prior to arriving with my overweight luggage. The regulations is not what I asked for. An INVOICE for the payment demanded by Turkish Airlines is what I asked for. Under the circumstances that I knew I had overweight luggage to be administered at check-in, I did my part and adhered to my responsibility to be the first traveler to be in the check-in queue (after an online check in too), especially because I was aware of overweight luggage administration. Turkish Airlines' answer to my request for a invoice - by printing me papers and papers of their online stipulations about how much money for how many kilograms overweight - did not adhere to my request for a formal invoice for the money transaction they demanded from mw prior to checking in my overweight luggage in on their conveyer belts. They obfuscated my request by printing me their online information. I was well informed of their online information. My request was for an INVOICE for their money demand for the transaction they required of me prior to their allowance for me to board for my paid and online (already) checked-in flight! At the check-in counter (even though I was checked in online already by the time, AND the first in the Turkish Airlines' counter queues, to also ensure I am the first client to check in), time ran out amid the dispute that they refuse to provide me with an invoice for the money they demanded from me. My flight to Europe's bording time was getting close. After further explanations for my rights to request an invoice prior to the airline demanded money to be paid by me, by now Turkish Airlines' on the ground manager and the Cape Town International airport's area managers were involved. With all the time passing and Turkish Airlines not adhering to my client rights to request an invoice for that they demand money from me, I insisted to the check-in counter staff at the check-in desk, to just simply swipe my credit card and get the payment through for Turkish Airlines' demanded money for overweight luggage. He was full of attitude and refused to take my payment. He even asked me to move away from the check-in desk so he could assist the clients behind me in the queue! As I refused to leave the check-in desk, and insisted that the payment be taken from my credit card for the alleged overweight of my luggage, just so I could be allowed to board and reach my destination, the check-in staff kept refusing to take my card. This was the biggest injustice to me and it costed me my flight PLUS a next flight's cost for which Turkish Airlines have until today not refunded me for their mistake. What followed after being refused my rightful payment swipe at the check-in desk, is that I was forced to leave the check-in desk, by the Cape Town Airport Area manager. Me, with all my (overweight) luggage was now escorted by the Cape Town International Airport Area Manager, to stand in the queue at the Turkish Airlines customer service desk (i.e. away from the check in area). It was an empty promise that "now that the check-in points' payment option is closed", I ought to pay for the overweight luggage at the customer service desk. This was an absolute lie! Again at this point too, Turkish Airline Customer Service desk refused to take my payment I by now insisted they must put through, or else I will be loosing my flight and my appointment in Europe. On the way from the TA check-in desk to the Turkish Airlines customer care service point at Cape Town International Airport, the airport staff had my passport in his hand (handed over to him by the Turkish Airlines check-in desk manager staff) and took a photo of my passport ID page! That's my data, I reprimanded him, and insisted that he must delete the photo and hand me back my passport - which should not have been given out to him in the first place by the Turkish Airlines check-in management desk. This man gave me my passport back in my hand, but kept the photo of my passport ID page on his personal phone. Arriving at the Turkish Airlines customer service desk with an empty promise by the Turkish Airlines check in desk that I will be assisted to pay the overweight luggage there due to the section's payment still being open now that the check-in desk's payment servers were closed, I was not helped to get the luggage overweight payment through whatsoever. My chances for boarding was cut already by Turkish Airlines itself by this time. The lady at the Turkish Airlines customer service desk (a Turkish national who spoke very bad English) stayed on the phone speaking Turkish for minutes without end, which seemed not even to help a client ahead of me in the queue, while my flight was minutes away from departing. I said to the man in front of me, I will miss my flight if an immediate payment for my overweight luggage is not accepted at this desk. He understood and said I should go ahead of him. I insisted to the Turkish speaking staff of this Turkish Airlines customer service desk, that my payment for overweight luggage to my already checked-in flight be put through immediately, or else I will loose my flight. The employee at the Turkish Airlines Customer Care counter neither understood her task or responsibility, nor the urgency of the situation as she phoned once again to continue her conversation in Turkish. I insisted that she gets off the phone and swipe my card for overweight luggage payment as my flight was by now already boarding. She then called the Airport Police! This police officer tried to remedy the situation as he listened and understood the urgency. He said to the lady at the Turkish Airlines Customer service desk that she ought to put through my payment for the overweight luggage, but the Turkish Airlines staff refused to do so. By this time the Cape Town International Airport Area Manager came to me and said that he will release the flight and tell them not to wait for me to board (since I was checked-in online already). So he went ahead and informed the airplane staff through his walkie talkie device not to wait for my luggage or my boarding before departing. I was denied the right to board my paid Turkish Airlines flight, because I insisted on fair trade and an invoice for money they demanded from me. A receipt after they pirate take my money, was not sufficient for my records. Turkish Airlines have grossly violated consumer protection laws in South Africa. And they keep violating consumer protection laws by refusing invoices for overweight luggage payment demands. A receipt only after payment, is not sufficient! The airline's denial of an invoice for a transaction of money they demand to allow a client to board their paid and checked-in flight, is a violation of consumer protection. It has now been over a year after the event, and Turkish Airlines has neither refunded me the flight cost of about R7000, nor the R40 000 one way ticket I had no choice to buy on the next available airline (only Business Class was available) to ensure my timely arrival for my appointment in Europe. This incident happened on 6 July 2019, for the flight which was to leave for Europe at 17h00. Complaints were handed in to the airline, of which nothing came and no compensation for my personal expenses were offered after this gross injustice conducted by Turkish Airlines.
0 replies
82 months ago
Turkish Airlines' unethical practice
Turkish Airlines refused to provide me an invoice (namely an official payment quote) for overweight luggage check in at Cape Town international airport. Standard practice to any business practice before taking in payment is: 1. business provides invoice, 2. client pays, 3. client received receipt for payment done. Step one was wholly refused to me, and I inssisted on receiving the invoice prior to paying overweight luggage which calculated to an amount higger than my actual ticket. I was refered to the website policy on overweight luggage (which I studied in detail prior to the flight and knew the amount I was liable to pay), but Turkish Airlines refused to invoice me with an official invoice! This resulted that, although I was the first passenger to queue up for luggage check in (I already checked in online prior to arrival at Cape Town International Airport), I was the last to be left and still been refused check in, because Turkish Airlines failed to provide me with an invoice for an amount over R6000. Staff had no idea, and I was thrown around between "managers of divisions" who hardly understood the request. Some had no understanding of what an onvoice is. Eventually the operations management overruled all and gave the order to take my flight registration off record. I was denied the right to board on a paid flight, because Turkish airlines refused to provide me with an invoice schedule on money they insisted to receive from me without any legal document on it. Late night stranded with my luggage at Cape Town international airport, and my personal responsibility to be at my end destination, I was forced to pay the next available flight to Europe, which was over R40 000! I hold Turkish Airlines liable for full cost refund and more. It has cost me even more in travel cost to reach my end destination, and be on time for my duties, due to Turkish Airlines' corrupt refusal of supplying an official invoice for money they insist to receive without any formal paperwork supplied in good order to the client.
0 replies
127 months ago
Coricraft's unacceptable business ethics
I am very disgusted at Coricraft's lack of business ethic. They have advertised a couch in a certain colour at a certain price. When browsing their samples live in the shop, it is clear that the picture of the advertisement shows the Everest Clay colour in their advertisement of R7995. I requested the couch in the colour exactly as advertised, but I was informed that that colour (advertised@R7995) goes for R12 000! CROOKS! The R7995 is only for colours X, Y and Z (not the advertised colour). I was taken aback about this. How can they advertise a certain colour, and then only state that the price goes with colours different to the advertised? I negotiated with them, and stated that I was drawn to the couch's colour as advertised and want to buy that colour specifically. Coricraft agreed to have the couch made for me in the colour as advertised. So I ordered it. They tried to convince me that the colour in the picture is \Columbian Spice". Which it is DEFINITELY not! Coricraft went ahead and made the couch in Columbian Spice. When the couch arrived"
75 replies
128 months ago
refusing to confirm complaint submitted
I spoke to Shihaam Baradien on 28 September 16h36 to request feedback on a dispiute submitted about an account with Telkom regarding line cancellation. She refused to give me confirmation in writing to confirm the conversation, and then put me on hold after a 20 minute discussion on the issue, and instead of the requested email to confirm to me in writing that my request for escalation to management is done, she sends me an sms confirming my contact detials on Telkom's records. Telkom staff are TRAINED to keep complaining customers \entertained"on the phone"
75 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
0 (0%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
2 (28.571428571428573%)
1 Star
5 (71.42857142857143%)