JV
Jan V
Active since Jun 2025
33
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
33 reviews2 months ago
Ongoing Hardware Failure – Samsung Galaxy A06 – Manufacturer Intervention Required
I purchased a Samsung Galaxy A06 from Takealot on 18 August 2025 under Order No. 187528089. Within three months of purchase the device began presenting persistent hardware-related failures, including random power cycling, unstable and intermittent charging, continuous charging notification pinging while connected, screen brightness instability, and non-responsiveness while plugged in. The defect was formally reported in November 2025, well within the six-month statutory warranty period under the Consumer Protection Act. The device has not been opened, modified, or tampered with. I undertook reasonable troubleshooting steps, including software reinstalls and system resets, before reporting the issue. The problem remains ongoing. Takealot’s proposed solution requires that I surrender the device for warehouse assessment without any defined turnaround time and without confirmation of immediate replacement stock. This phone is my primary communication tool and central to my daily work operations. It is not reasonable to expect a consumer to be left without functional communication for an undefined period while a defective product is being “tested,” particularly when the defect was reported within the statutory protection period. The matter has already been escalated. The defect persists. There has been no meaningful resolution. I am not seeking argument. I am seeking a fair and practical remedy consistent with consumer protection standards.
0 replies
2 months ago
Defective Samsung Galaxy A06 – Reported Within Warranty – No Reasonable Resolution
I purchased a Samsung Galaxy A06 from Takealot on 18 August 2025 under Order No. 187528089. Within three months of purchase the device began presenting persistent hardware-related failures, including random power cycling, unstable and intermittent charging, continuous charging notification pinging while connected, screen brightness instability, and non-responsiveness while plugged in. The defect was formally reported in November 2025, well within the six-month statutory warranty period under the Consumer Protection Act. The device has not been opened, modified, or tampered with. I undertook reasonable troubleshooting steps, including software reinstalls and system resets, before reporting the issue. The problem remains ongoing. Takealot’s proposed solution requires that I surrender the device for warehouse assessment without any defined turnaround time and without confirmation of immediate replacement stock. This phone is my primary communication tool and central to my daily work operations. It is not reasonable to expect a consumer to be left without functional communication for an undefined period while a defective product is being “tested,” particularly when the defect was reported within the statutory protection period. The matter has already been escalated. The defect persists. There has been no meaningful resolution. I am not seeking argument. I am seeking a fair and practical remedy consistent with consumer protection standards.
106 replies
2 months ago
Severe Pain, Broken Tooth After Root Canal – Awaiting Urgent Resolution
I underwent a root canal procedure at Intercare Wonderboom Junction on 13 January 2026. During the procedure I experienced extreme pain despite multiple injections. I was informed the pain would subside after the treatment and that removal of nerve endings would prevent further pain. Instead, the pain intensified significantly the following day. I returned to the practice urgently and struggled to obtain timely intervention and appropriate medication. The pain has persisted. On the weekend of 7–8 February 2026, a portion of the same treated tooth fractured. I am now facing further invasive treatment and additional medical costs. I have formally escalated the matter to Intercare Holdings and requested urgent resolution due to ongoing pain and medical implications. This post is not to seek sympathy, but to record my experience and await a formal response from Intercare at executive level. I trust the group will address this matter with the seriousness it warrants.
112 replies
2 months ago
Defective JVC Television – Poor Resolution Handling by Local Importer (Nuworld Industries)
I am lodging this as a formal consumer complaint regarding a defective JVC television and the manner in which the authorised local importer, Nuworld Industries, has handled the matter. I purchased a new JVC television (Model LT-40NQ5165) via Takealot. The unit has a clear, repeatable fault: it powers on normally and then switches itself off automatically without any user input. This occurs intermittently but repeatedly, rendering the television unreliable and, at times, unusable. This is not normal behaviour for a new television and indicates an internal defect. The issue has been demonstrated on video and described consistently. Despite this, resolution has been unnecessarily delayed. My experience to date has been frustrating for the following reasons: I initially engaged the retailer, as required, but received no meaningful resolution. I then had to independently identify the authorised local importer for JVC, which was not clear or easily accessible to a consumer. Once engaged, the importer focused on internal administrative requirements rather than resolving the defect. I was repeatedly asked for a “job number” and later for a purchase invoice, despite the fact that the product is clearly identifiable as new and traceable by model and serial number. Responsibility for delays has been shifted between retailer and importer, leaving the consumer caught in the middle. As a consumer, I am not concerned with internal hand-offs between retailer and importer. I purchased a JVC product in good faith and expect it to function as such. A new television that switches itself off is not of acceptable quality and does not meet reasonable consumer expectations. I am not seeking anything unreasonable. I am seeking acknowledgment of the defect and a straightforward resolution in line with basic consumer rights—without further delays, deflection, or procedural obstacles. This complaint is lodged to place the matter on public record and to seek fair, prompt resolution.
0 replies
2 months ago
Takealot Lies on Its Own Platform: Contradictory Tracking, False Returns, and Misrepresentation Across Durban & Gauteng
Takealot Lies on Its Own Platform: Contradictory Tracking, False Returns, and Misrepresentation Across Durban & Gauteng This complaint is based entirely on Takealot’s own records, tracking logs, and website entries. No speculation. No assumptions. Just Takealot contradicting itself repeatedly. Order #202637211 – Zara Ergonomic High-Back Office Chair (R999) I paid for this order on 28 January 2026. Takealot promised delivery on 30 January 2026 before 17h00 to my address in Pretoria, Gauteng. Here is where Takealot’s own system starts lying. According to Takealot’s own tracking: The parcel was shipped from Durban North, KwaZulu-Natal Then the same parcel is recorded as arriving at a courier facility in Sunnyside, Pretoria Delivery is scheduled locally for 30 January So far, so good. Then suddenly, without delivery, without contact, without inspection by me: 30 January 06:50 Takealot records: “Parcel damaged in transit. Replacement requested.” A few hours later, on the same order: The return reason is changed to “Lost in transit” The return is marked “concluded” A replacement is automatically issued This is not a mistake. This is a direct contradiction. A parcel cannot be both “damaged” and “lost”. A parcel recorded at a Pretoria courier facility cannot be “lost in transit”. A return cannot be “concluded” when the customer never received, signed for, returned, or handed back anything. Takealot simply closed the problem on their system without physical reality matching the paperwork. That is misrepresentation. False Return / False Cancellation At no point did I: Cancel the order Receive the item Return the item Authorise any disposal Yet Takealot’s platform reflects a completed return. This means Takealot’s internal records do not reflect reality, and they are willing to administratively “clean up” failed deliveries by falsifying outcomes. Replacement Order #202873208 – More Contradictions The replacement order was issued on 30 January 2026 using Takealot credit (not my choice). Now Takealot contradicts itself again: In one place, Takealot says delivery will happen on 31 January In another place, the same order says delivery will be on 2 or 3 February Which is it? Once again, tracking shows the replacement parcel shipping from Durban North, KwaZulu-Natal, despite: The delivery being to Pretoria The product being advertised as readily available The initial failure being caused by long-distance handling Takealot repeats the exact same logistics failure that caused the first order to collapse. Durban → Gauteng → “Lost” → Durban – This Is Not Logistics Takealot’s system shows: Durban North (KZN) Pretoria courier facility (Gauteng) “Damaged” “Lost” “Returned” “Concluded” All for the same parcel. That is not a courier issue. That is internal data manipulation to make a failure disappear. Price Manipulation on Top of Delivery Failure Two days after my order failed, I checked Takealot’s own website. The exact same chair, same SKU, same product page is now listed at a lower price. So to summarise: I paid more Takealot failed to deliver They forced a replacement instead of a refund They quietly benefit from a price drop caused by their own failure That is economic prejudice caused by Takealot. Bottom Line Takealot: Contradicts itself on tracking Contradicts itself on locations (Durban / Gauteng / Durban) Contradicts itself on delivery dates Falsely records returns Closes failures administratively instead of factually Misleads customers using its own platform This is not a once-off mistake. This is a systemic operational and da******egrity failure. I am placing this on public record because Takealot cannot be allowed to rewrite reality using dropdown statuses on a screen.
0 replies
3 months ago
FoneYam / Pepkor Group – Harassment, False Payment Demands, and Unacceptable 30-Day “Response” While Threatening Device Lockouts
I am lodging this complaint against FoneYam, a handset-financing operation operating under the Pepkor Group umbrella, for ongoing harassment, false payment reminders, and abusive automated processes, despite payments being made on time and in advance. Summary of the issue Since inception of my arrangement with FoneYam, I have paid in excess of R1,000. Despite this, FoneYam repeatedly sends SMS payment reminders and device-lockout threats after payments are already reflected. This has happened multiple times, including after my most recent payment on 28 January 2026. This is not an isolated error. It is a pattern. What makes this unacceptable Payments are made on time or early, with receipts and screenshots available. Automated threats (payment reminders and device control messages) are sent without proper reconciliation. When I formally demand cancellation and a refund, I receive: An automated reply directing me to self-service channels (irrelevant to a formal dispute), and A second automated reply from “Claims” stating they may take up to 30 working days to respond, while still continuing to issue payment demands and threats. A business cannot demand immediate compliance and payment, yet unilaterally claim 30 working days to respond to a legitimate consumer complaint involving harassment and misrepresentation. Why this matters This conduct amounts to: Misrepresentation of account status Aggressive and misleading consumer communication Failure to reconcile payments before issuing threats Unfair consumer practice under basic CPA principles I do not consent to: Ongoing automated threats Continued SMS communications of this nature Any further relationship with FoneYam What I demanded (in writing) Immediate termination of all FoneYam services and device-control arrangements A full refund of all monies paid from inception to date A written refund breakdown Written confirmation that all SMS and device-related communications have ceased Instead of addressing this, FoneYam responded with generic automation, including a demand for an affidavit and SAPS case number, which is entirely inappropriate for a billing dispute caused by their own system failures. Pepkor Group accountability Pepkor Group cannot distance itself from consumer harm caused by subsidiaries or controlled brands. If this is how FoneYam treats paying customers, it reflects directly on Pepkor’s governance, consumer-risk controls, and oversight. Evidence Proof of payments Screenshots of payment reminders and device-lockout messages sent after payment Copies of automated responses claiming “up to 30 working days” to reply All evidence is available. Conclusion This complaint is not emotional or speculative. It is evidence-based. A company cannot harass a customer with automated threats while hiding behind automated inboxes and a 30-working-day delay when called out. If Pepkor Group and FoneYam believe this conduct is acceptable, consumers deserve to know.
224 replies
3 months ago
Samsung Galaxy A06 – Same Defect on Multiple Replacements, Completely Unacceptable
I am beyond frustrated at this point and I’m putting this here publicly because internal channels have failed. I bought a Samsung Galaxy A06 cash through Takealot about 3–4 months ago. This is now the second or third replacement device, and every single one has the same problem. The phone keeps resetting the screen brightness to the lowest possible level by itself, even when it’s manually set to maximum. It happens multiple times a day, then sometimes stops for a day or two, and then starts again. No user input. No setting changes. Nothing. The phone just decides on its own to make itself almost unusable. This is not user error. It is not a settings issue. It is clearly a device or firmware defect, especially considering it has happened on more than one replacement. Because I initially thought I might be doing something wrong, I’ve already wasted thousands of rands travelling back and forth to service centres in Pretoria and elsewhere. I live far outside the city. Fuel, time, disruption — all for a phone that still does not work properly. The “solution” I keep getting is that the phone must be booked in for testing while I sit without a phone for an undefined period. That is unacceptable. I buy prepaid devices cash specifically so I am not left without communication. A basic working phone is not an unreasonable expectation. I’ve been a Samsung user for many years. I previously had a Samsung A05 without this issue. This Galaxy A06 experience is honestly the worst phone experience I’ve had in decades. I have now escalated this directly to Samsung South Africa senior management because I’ve reached the end of my patience.
224 replies
3 months ago
Unauthorised Vodacom Deductions, Invented “Special Deals”, and Systemic Customer Disregard
I am a Vodacom prepaid customer. Over a prolonged period, Vodacom has deducted airtime from my number without my consent, resulting in financial losses amounting to several thousand rand. In the most recent escalation to customer care, the consultant attempted to justify the deductions by claiming that Vodacom “automatically deducts money because customers take special deals.” This explanation is false. I do not take special deals. I do not subscribe to value-added services. I do not authorise recurring or automatic deductions. One such unauthorised service was “Baseplay Max”, which Vodacom alleged was active on my number and billed daily. I categorically deny ever subscribing to this service. Vodacom has failed to produce any proof of lawful opt-in, including: a confirmed activation event, device-initiated consent, or any evidence that the service was ever used. The service was only cancelled after escalation, which itself raises serious questions as to why it existed in the first place. In addition, my airtime has repeatedly been depleted through: alleged out-of-bundle data charging, non-consensual airtime-to-data conversion, and automatic airtime advances with interest. This occurred despite controlled usage and the explicit purpose of a prepaid service being to prevent uncontrolled expenditure. I escalated the matter formally to Vodacom’s executive structures. Experience shows that with large telecommunications providers in South Africa, responses arrive only when they decide the consumer has waited long enough. That delay is not incidental — it is part of the problem. Vodacom’s billing systems and customer-care responses appear structured to: normalise unauthorised deductions, deflect responsibility with scripted explanations, and exhaust consumers into abandoning disputes involving relatively “small” amounts that, in aggregate, amount to thousands of rand per customer. I have now issued a formal executive demand requiring: full restitution of all unauthorised deductions in cash, not airtime credits, proof of consent for every charge, and a written acknowledgement of the billing failure. Failing resolution, this matter is being escalated through ICASA and the Consumer Protection Act for non-consensual and unfair billing practices. This complaint is placed on public record so that other consumers understand how unauthorised deductions are explained away, delayed, and normalised — and what it takes to challenge them.
168 replies
3 months ago
PEP Stores – Selling Discontinued Footwear With No Exchange Remedy | No Response From Pepkor Management
I am lodging this complaint after multiple failed attempts to resolve the matter directly with Pepkor. On 26 December, I visited PEP Stores at Gezina Galleries, Pretoria, to exchange a brand-new, unworn pair of slip-on shoes received as a Christmas gift. The shoes were size 8 and did not fit me. I requested a simple, lawful exchange for size 9 footwear. What followed was unacceptable. • The store had no size 9 in the same shoe • No alternative colour in size 9 was available • I asked whether the correct size could be sourced from another PEP store • I was told this was “not her job” Without me requesting a refund, I was then told no refund was possible because I did not have a slip. This was irrelevant — I did not ask for a refund. I asked for usable footwear. I was further informed that the shoes were old / discontinued stock and that the store was simply selling what remained. This raises a serious issue: Why is PEP selling discontinued footwear to the public when no reasonable exchange solution exists — and why is that risk pushed onto customers? I live outside Pretoria, on plots. The cost in fuel and time to travel to the store exceeded the R149 value of the shoes. The amount is not the issue — the principle is. PEP serves predominantly lower-income South Africans. For many customers, losing money, time, and dignity in this way is not trivial. Selling discontinued items without disclosure or practical remedies is unfair and exploitative. Escalation ignored • I sent a formal written complaint to Pepkor shortly after Christmas • I sent a second escalation email to senior Pepkor recipients • I contacted Customer Care and received a reference number • No reply. No feedback. No accountability The silence is as concerning as the incident itself. From a Consumer Protection Act perspective, this conduct raises serious concerns regarding: • Fair and reasonable treatment of consumers • Goods not fit for their intended purpose • Failure to provide practical post-purchase remedies From a governance and ethics perspective, it reflects: • Poor policy design • Inadequate staff empowerment • A culture that prioritises rigid process over people A customer should not leave a store with brand-new but unusable shoes and be told that resolving it is “not someone’s job”. I am posting this publicly because private channels have failed. I expect this matter to be acknowledged and addressed at a senior level, not ignored.
0 replies
4 months ago
Unreasonable Refusal to Exchange Unworn Gift Item – Gezina Galleries PEP
I am recording a concerning customer experience at the PEP store in Gezina Galleries following a Christmas gift purchase. A pair of shoes (R149) was bought for me as a gift. The shoes were new, unworn, and in original condition, but the size (8) did not fit. I visited the store simply to exchange them for a size 9. Despite a polite and reasonable approach, the following occurred: The store had no size 9 available. Staff refused to source the same item or a comparable alternative from another PEP store. I was told the item was “discontinued,” despite it having been recently sold. An exchange or refund was refused outright. I was challenged for not having a slip, despite the item clearly being a Christmas gift and visibly unused. No attempt was made to find a practical solution. The interaction was inflexible and dismissive, and the time and travel costs incurred exceeded the value of the item itself. This was not about the monetary amount, but about basic customer service and reasonable problem-solving. I regularly shop at retailers where staff are empowered to resolve simple gift exchanges without alienating customers. Unfortunately, this experience fell far below reasonable service expectations. I am sharing this so other consumers are aware of how gift exchanges may be handled at this store and to encourage clarity and consistency in PEP’s customer service practices.
0 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
2 (6.0606060606060606%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
0 (0%)
1 Star
31 (93.93939393939394%)