LV
Lee V
Active since Oct 2013
32
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
32 reviews1 month ago
*********** Service and Wasted Call-Out Fee — No Work Rendered
Absolutely no service was rendered during this call-out. The plumber, Princess, attended to replace leaking flexi pipes but refused to dislodge the sink — which is the only way to access the pipes. This is basic plumbing knowledge. I was charged a call-out fee for nothing. The interaction was unprofessional and the lack of competency is alarming for a company contracted by a major insurer. Avoid.
0 replies
1 month ago
Despicable Service or Lack Thereof from Santam
I write to lodge a formal complaint regarding the premature and wholly unjustified closure of my claim, Claim Number 301770711, without any service having been rendered or my plumbing issue having been resolved in any way. I submitted a claim under the Home Assist benefit for a plumbing emergency involving leaking flexi pipes under my sink. Santam, through its third-party service provider Europ Assistance, subcontracted the job to CM Mbewe Plumbing. A plumber attended the property and, upon assessment, advised that the sink would need to be dislodged in order to access and replace the flexi pipes which is a standard and logical requirement for this type of repair. CM Mbewe Plumbing declined to proceed with this, meaning no work was carried out whatsoever. I must also place on record that the representative from CM Mbewe Plumbing, Princess, conducted herself in an unprofessional manner during this interaction. I was charged a call-out fee for a visit that yielded absolutely nothing, which I find completely unacceptable. Despite my explicitly informing Santam's consultant that no service was rendered, and despite my specific request that she provide me with the relevant Terms and Conditions governing the replacement of flexi pipes — including whether the policy excludes the necessary dislodging of a sink in order to complete such a repair, the consultant closed my claim without addressing any of these concerns and without providing the requested documentation 5 mins later. Furthermore, during our call, the consultant suggested that I would require Building Insurance to cover this claim. This is both incorrect and deeply concerning. My Home Assist cover explicitly includes the call-out fee and the first hour of labour for plumbing repairs. The dislodging of the sink is not a separate or additional claim — it is the only means of gaining access to the flexi pipe and is therefore an integral and inseparable part of the repair itself. To suggest that this falls outside Home Assist and requires Building Insurance is either a fundamental misunderstanding of my policy on the part of your consultant, or a deliberate attempt to avoid honoring a legitimate claim. Either way, it is unacceptable. This raises serious questions: 1. How is a flexi pipe expected to be replaced without dislodging the sink? If your appointed contractor is unwilling or unable to perform the work correctly, that is a failure of service delivery not grounds for claim closure. 2. The consultant's assertion that Building Insurance is required is factually incorrect. The cost of gaining access to a pipe in order to repair it falls squarely within the scope of Home Assist cover. 3. I was never provided with the Terms and Conditions I specifically requested, which I am entitled to as a policyholder. 4. Call-out fee for a service that was not rendered. I expect this to be returned for the amount of service requests allowable on my policy which is 3. The claim was closed without my consent, without resolution, and without any satisfactory explanation. I formally demand the following: 1. The immediate reopening of Claim 301770711 2. A full copy of the relevant Terms and Conditions pertaining to flexi pipe replacement and any related exclusions 3. A written clarification of exactly what my Home Assist cover includes, specifically regarding access costs forming part of a covered repair 4. The refund of the call-out feeservice request, given that no service was performed 5. A formal written response addressing each of the above points within 5 business days I have been a loyal Santam policyholder for a number of years, and this experience has seriously undermined my confidence in both Santam and its appointed service providers. Should this matter not be resolved to my satisfaction, I will have no option but to consider other insurance providers and pursue all further avenues available to me for resolution.
3 replies
2 months ago
Repeated SkyNet Delivery Failures & Disregard for Customer Feedback
I want to lodge a formal complaint regarding the ongoing failure to deliver my contract upgrade (Order placed 28 March 2025) and Vodacom’s complete disregard for my previous complaint and explicit delivery partner request. Last year, I filed a formal complaint regarding discriminatory and aggressive conduct by a SkyNet driver, who: • Refused to accept my passport as valid identification (despite it being legally recognized ID) • Returned a second time with a hostile, aggressive attitude, shouting at me on my doorstep • Exhibited discriminatory behavior toward foreign nationals This experience was so unacceptable that I returned that contract upgrade rather than continue engaging with SkyNet. Despite giving Vodacom another chance with a new upgrade order on 28 March 2025, the same pattern of poor service has repeated: 8 April: I called 0821945 to follow up on my order (no movement since 30 March confirmation call) 8 April (later): During dispatch confirmation call, I explicitly requested RAM courier instead of SkyNet due to my previous traumatic experience. The consultant acknowledged my request and said she would note it. 8 April (minutes later): Received message confirming dispatch via SkyNet - proving Vodacom completely ignored my request and feedback. 10 April: Received delivery notification from SkyNet for delivery by 5pm. No delivery occurred. No communication from SkyNet. 13 April (Monday): Received failed delivery notifications from both SkyNet and Vodacom. Called 0821945 - told the courier was “******.” I again requested new delivery via RAM courier. Consultant claimed she would email admin. 16 April: Followed up - told “email sent to admin, no response.” 22 April (TODAY): Still no resolution, no delivery, no communication from Vodacom. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE: • 25 days since order placement with no delivery • Complete disregard for my explicit courier preference based on documented discriminatory treatment • No accountability for SkyNet’s failed delivery (whether ******* or otherwise) • Zero communication or proactive resolution from Vodacom • Repeated empty promises from consultants about “emailing admin” I am the customer - not a party to your courier disputes. Whatever claims process exists between Vodacom and SkyNet is NOT my problem and should NOT delay my order.
2 replies
5 months ago
Formal Complaint - Discriminatory Delivery Refusal and Contract Fulfillment Failure
I want to lodge a formal complaint regarding the absolutely unacceptable treatment I received during my recent contract upgrade delivery. As a long-standing Vodacom customer who has successfully upgraded contracts multiple times over the years, I have always used my passport as proof of identification - which is the standard and legally recognized form of ID for foreign nationals in South Africa. This has never been an issue with any previous deliveries, and the contract itself is linked to my passport number. However, on 2 January 2025, your delivery partner SkyNet (Driver: Nolence Mashatile) refused to hand over my parcel at my doorstep. The courier stated he "doubts they'll accept a passport as proof of ID" - despite the fact that: My passport is my legal identification document in South Africa All previous Vodacom deliveries have accepted my passport without question The contract upgrade is literally registered under my passport number There is no legitimate business reason to refuse a passport as identification This refusal was not based on any company policy or legitimate security concern - it was clearly driven by discriminatory attitudes toward passport holders and foreign nationals. This is xenophobic behavior that has no place in any professional service, and Vodacom should not tolerate such conduct from delivery partners representing your brand. I am deeply disappointed that as a loyal customer, I was subjected to this treatment. This experience has made me seriously reconsider whether to proceed with this contract upgrade or to take my business to a service provider that does not enable discriminatory practices. I expect the following: Immediate fulfillment of my contract upgrade delivery with proper acceptance of my passport A formal investigation into this incident with your delivery partner Assurance that your delivery partners are trained to accept all legally valid forms of identification A written apology and confirmation of steps taken to prevent such ************** in future I await your urgent response within 48 hours. Worse off I even called Vodacom after sales number and received non existent support from one of your consultants. Call was made at 13:20.
3 replies
5 months ago
Formal Complaint - Discriminatory Service Refusal and Xenophobic Conduct
I would like to report an extremely serious incident involving discriminatory conduct by one of your couriers named Nolence Mashile that occurred on 2 January 2026 at my address. Your courier was delivering a parcel on behalf of Vodacom requiring ID verification. When I presented my passport - the standard and legally recognized form of identification for foreign nationals in South Africa - he refused to complete the delivery, stating he "doubts they'll accept a passport as proof of ID." This is completely unacceptable for the following reasons: A passport is a valid, legally recognized form of identification in South Africa I have received numerous deliveries over the years using my passport without any issues The contract in question is registered under my passport number There is no legitimate policy reason to refuse a passport as identification The only explanation for this refusal is xenophobic prejudice against foreign nationals and passport holders. Your courier's behavior was discriminatory, unprofessional, and absolutely appalling. As a delivery service operating in South Africa - a country with significant foreign national and immigrant populations - your staff must be trained to accept all valid forms of identification without bias. The attitude displayed by your courier is not only offensive but potentially discriminatory under South African law. I demand the following: Immediate disciplinary action against the courier involved Completion of my delivery with proper acceptance of my passport as valid ID Mandatory training for all couriers on accepting legal identification documents A formal written apology Confirmation that policies are in place to prevent such ************** Please provide an incident reference number for this complaint. I expect a response within 48 hours. I am also escalating this matter to Vodacom and will consider further action if this is not resolved satisfactorily.
0 replies
6 months ago
MTN Supersonic - PATHETIC AND NON-EXISTENT SERVICE
FALSE ADVERTI*****T - INVOICED MORE THAN I AGREED UPON Invoice INV-2098018 was pro-ratad on a monthly amount of R549 instead of R449, WHY? I am writing to lodge a formal complaint regarding incorrect billing on my account and the appalling lack of customer service support I have received since signing up for MTN Fibre. Incorrect Billing Under Promotional Offer I signed up for the MTN Fibre "Save R600 over 6 months Promotion" which clearly states on your website (fibre.mtn.co.za/terms-and-conditions) that: The promotional period runs from 7 November 2025 to 31 January 2026 Customers receive R100 off their monthly fee for the first six months The 25/25 Mbps package should be R449 per month during the promotional period From month 7 onwards, the price increases to R549 However, my invoice dated 3 December 2025 (Invoice INV-2098018) shows: Amount charged: R513.58 (including VAT) pro-rata for 29 days from R549. Which is the non-promotional price of R549, not the promotional rate of R449 that I signed up for. I am requesting: An immediate correction to my billing to reflect the R449 promotional rate Written confirmation that the promotional pricing will be honored for the full six-month period. I have tried numerous times to reach your client support via email and over the phone to no avail. Over the phone I have to hold for over 10mins until I give and drop the call. I’ve logged tickets which are ignored. Given the non existent customer service and client support I regret signing up for this offer and I have grounds to cancel given I have been overbilled (that’s not the offer I signed up for. Invoice in question is INV-2098018 Please rectify ASAP before I escalate further to the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud.
0 replies
6 months ago
Unprofessional Wumdrop Driver Refused to Complete Delivery to Door
I am writing to express my disappointment with a recent Makro delivery experience involving your contracted Wumdrop driver, Malose Elias Sema. I placed an order with Makro for home delivery. I provided the driver with the access code to enter my complex, and he was successfully processed through security. However, upon arrival, he refused to bring my items to my apartment door and instead insisted that I come downstairs to collect them myself. This is completely unconventional and unacceptable. All previous Makro deliveries, as well as deliveries from other retailers, have been brought to my door without issue. This is the standard expectation for home delivery services. What concerns me most is why this driver would accept a delivery consignment only to refuse to fulfill the basic requirement of delivering to the customer's door. His conduct was unprofessional, and this experience has left me questioning the reliability of your delivery service. I expect home delivery to mean exactly that: delivery to my home, not to the entrance of my building. I trust that Makro will address this matter with Wumdrop and ensure that drivers understand and fulfill their delivery obligations properly.
0 replies
6 months ago
Incorrect Billing and Poor Customer Service
I signed up for the MTN Fibre "Save R600 over 6 months Promotion" which clearly states on your website (fibre.mtn.co.za/terms-and-conditions) that: The promotional period runs from 7 November 2025 to 31 January 2026 Customers receive R100 off their monthly fee for the first six months The 25/25 Mbps package should be R449 per month during the promotional period and from month 7 onwards, the price increases to R549. However, my invoice dated 3 December 2025 (Invoice INV-2098018) shows: Amount charged: R513.58 (including VAT) for 29 days which means it's R549 charged pro-rata, not the promotional rate of R449 that I signed up for. I was billed at the full rate from the very first invoice, despite activating my service during the promotional window. This constitutes false advertising and a breach of the promotional terms and conditions published on your website. I am requesting: 1. An immediate correction to my billing to reflect the R449 promotional rate 2. Written confirmation that the promotional pricing will be honored for the full six-month period My attempts to resolve this billing issue have been met with complete indifference: Email support: No responses whatsoever to multiple email queries Phone support: Hold times exceeding 10 minutes with no one answering, forcing me to give up This level of service is completely unacceptable. I signed a contract in good faith based on your advertised promotion, and I cannot even reach someone to discuss the billing error.
0 replies
8 months ago
Unauthorized Deduction of R773 - Immediate Refund Required
I am writing to express my extreme dissatisfaction with the unauthorized charge of R773 that was deducted from my account this morning. The facts are clear: 1. I cancelled my contract after being a loyal customer for over 4 years 2. I provided the required one month’s notice in September 3. I arranged for router collection on Friday, 3rd October as per your instructions. Initially scheduled for 1st of October but I made contact with your team on Monday 29th September to move collection date as I wouldn’t be home on the 1st and 2nd. 4. Despite fulfilling ALL contractual obligations, you have now charged me R773 for “router purchase” This charge is completely unacceptable and appears to be nothing more than an attempt to extract money from a departing customer who has done everything by the book. This is a disgraceful way to treat customers. I demand the following: 1. An IMMEDIATE reversal of the R773 charge 2. Written confirmation that no further charges will be app**** 3. Confirmation of the router collection appointment for 3rd October
1 reply
14 months ago
DEFECTIVE GOODS
Very disappointed in Game’s service all round, from the way the delivery service was handles to the actual product order. Order pots and they arrived in a defective condition. Firstly the pots do NOT have Lid handles (all of them) and some look scrathed as if they are from the bottom of the barrel. Please arrange collection for your defective pots and refund my money.
1 reply
Review Distribution
5 Star
3 (9.375%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
3 (9.375%)
1 Star
26 (81.25%)