WH
Wayne H
Active since Jun 2016
17
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
17 reviews4 months ago
Incorrect charge - Account subscriptions & once-off - R196
Incorrect charge - Account subscriptions & once-off - R196 Formal Billing Dispute: Incorrect Charges on Mobile Account Telkom has incorrectly (against the law) added a charge onto my monthly bill. Account subscriptions & once-off - R196. This is the second month they have charged this amount. It is very easy for Telkom to "incorrectly" charge a few thousand customers with irregular charges and "inject" a massive amount into their account. How many customers who are too busy don’t check their invoices and just let the monthly debit order run, thinking it is a normal usage charge. I would love to know how many Telkom customers this happens to. Try and report it and we know what type of service level Telkom’s standard is, you have no hope. I have reported it and was assured it will be removed. I have also asked for "proof" from Telkom that I subscribed to extras, and they cant provide it.
0 replies
4 months ago
******* and *****ulent charge - Account subscriptions & once-off - R196
Formal Billing Dispute: Incorrect Charges on Mobile Account Telkom has *******ly and *****ulently added a charge onto my monthly bill. Account subscriptions & once-off - R196. This is the second month they have charged this amount. It is very easy for Telkom to "incorrectly" charge a few thousand customers with irregular charges and "inject" a massive amount into their account. How many customers who are too busy don’t check their invoices and just let the monthly debit order run, thinking it is a normal usage charge. I would love to know how many Telkom customers this happens to. Try and report it and we know what type of service level Telkom’s standard is, you have no hope. Hence the complaint: Hi Simphiwe & Telkom Team, I have previously reported this matter. Simphiwe, you advised that your department would make contact with me, this has not happened. In addition, I called Telkom on the evening of 19 November 2025 at approximately 20:00 and logged a call regarding this issue. I requested a reference number and was advised to use the date as the reference. During that call, I was informed that the matter would be resolved. No follow-up or resolution has occurred. I do not have the time to repeatedly chase a service provider for the correction of an incorrect charge on an account for which I am paying in good faith. This charge was added without my authorisation. Telkom has bundled this charge onto my account without consent, which constitutes unauthorised billing. Based on publicly available complaints and customer feedback, this does not appear to be an isolated incident. I now require this matter to be formally escalated and dealt with immediately, including: 1. Removal and reversal of the unauthorised charge 2. A clear written explanation of how and why this charge was added to my account 3. Confirmation of steps taken to prevent a recurrence Please note that I require written confirmation and full resolution within five (5) business days of this email. If this matter is not resolved within five (5) business days of this correspondence, I will proceed with formal complaints to the National Consumer Commission and ICASA without further engagement. I expect urgent confirmation that this escalation is being addressed. Regards,
0 replies
35 months ago
Telkom show me my debit order mandate!!
Telkom show me my debit order mandate!! Telkom charged a "payment rejection fee" of R202.70 in October 2022. This is for a returned debit order, I have been told. The funny thing is I don't and have never paid via debit order, I have paid manually for the past few years. No new contract was signed or debit order mandate signed or agreed to. So this is what I find interesting, if Telkom had to charge this fee to a small percentage of their customers across SA, they would make a small fortune and no one would query it. To a lot of people it is not worth the time to query R202.70, it would be with a normal company that responds or gets back to their customers, however we all know how Telkom works. So we go into a Telkom store as good luck trying to get anywhere other than “catching” them at a physical location. The guy tells us that no Telkom contract is given without a debit order. Funny again how I have been paying manually for years and have never signed a debit order mandate. So my question is, all the regulations that have been implemented in SA that apply to “all” of us, such as NCA, POPI, CPA, etc etc. Do they apply to all of us, or do certain companies “get away” with it with no consequence when they break the rules, what is our recourse against a company like Telkom? Do they go sorry they made a “mistake” and reverse the transaction and the interest app**** to the R202.70 over the past few months, as out of principal I haven’t paid that part of the bill, or do they actually get fined these nice big hefty fines that are meant to be implemented for non-compliance? Oh and the only reason I have taken the time to write this is that they have handed me over!! Telkom you continue to be a joke!!
0 replies
50 months ago
Brilliant and efficient service from Brave Nyirenda!!
Brilliant and efficient service from Brave Nyirenda. This is the second time he as assisted me and again delivered!!
53 replies
59 months ago
Great Service
Great service from Brave Nyirenda with sorting out Hospital Authorisation for my wife. Highly recommend Oneplan.
159 replies
70 months ago
Nashua Durban & Nashua Limited - disrespectful and heartless company!!
We were pitched a “Nashua Solution” for our telephone system, which we never got. The Nashua appointed salesperson – Deon sold us something, which we had to eventually implement ourselves. There was no implementation of the “solution” we were sold and the entire process was poor and mismanaged. We had to hire someone to manage the implementation of the system and handle the problem solving with features that should have been working. We dealt with the matter direct with Nashua and ECN and never complained socially / publicly. 4 years later and more than 80% of the way through our contract, with over R150 000 paid out to Nashua for the rental of the equipment only. For equipment costing in the range of R35 000 to R50 000. We have our company shut down due to Covid 19 and the national lockdown in SA. We are put in a financial position and ask Nashua to please allow us to give back the equipment. (Which for reference has zero capital value to them at the end of the contract, they have got another company to finance it, so have never paid out a cent, we have paid for it 3 or 4 times over and then they get to take it back and sell it on to someone else) This may allow us to recover and keep our doors open. However Nashua takes the balance of our contract, adds up the remaining months and adds R5000 on top of the settlement and presents it to us as a settlement. In the meanwhile, Nashua disconnects all our outgoing calls (8th of June 2020) and then terminates all our incoming calls (26th of June 2020). So instead of assisting us and coming up with a “reasonable” settlement after already receiving 3 times the cost of the equipment, they disconnect us from our clients, making our situation worse. I have never dealt with such a disrespectful and heartless company.
0 replies
70 months ago
Nashua Durban & Nashua Limited - disrespectful and heartless company!!
We were pitched a “Nashua Solution” for our telephone system, which we never got. The Nashua appointed salesperson – Deon sold us something, which we had to eventually implement ourselves. There was no implementation of the “solution” we were sold and the entire process was poor and mismanaged. We had to hire someone to manage the implementation of the system and handle the problem solving with features that should have been working. We dealt with the matter direct with Nashua and ECN and never complained socially / publicly. 4 years later and more than 80% of the way through our contract, with over R150 000 paid out to Nashua for the rental of the equipment only. For equipment costing in the range of R35 000 to R50 000. We have our company shut down due to Covid 19 and the national lockdown in SA. We are put in a financial position and ask Nashua to please allow us to give back the equipment. (Which for reference has zero capital value to them at the end of the contract, they have got another company to finance it, so have never paid out a cent, we have paid for it 3 or 4 times over and then they get to take it back and sell it on to someone else) This may allow us to recover and keep our doors open. However Nashua takes the balance of our contract, adds up the remaining months and adds R5000 on top of the settlement and presents it to us as a settlement. In the meanwhile, Nashua disconnects all our outgoing calls (8th of June 2020) and then terminates all our incoming calls (26th of June 2020). So instead of assisting us and coming up with a “reasonable” settlement after already receiving 3 times the cost of the equipment, they disconnect us from our clients, making our situation worse. I have never dealt with such a disrespectful and heartless company.
0 replies
71 months ago
Owner is a fraudster
The owner – Uriel Gochin of this company (Dot Safety Footwear), feels that it is ok to enter into a contractual agreement (exclusive mandate) with a residential property company (Hendra Estates). Hendra Estates shows a Purchaser (Ethne Koffler) the property under mandate, not once but twice. The Seller and Purchaser then cut out the Agency after signing a legal contract, now Hendra Estates is required to get an attorney to take the Seller (Uriel Gochin) to court, however the Seller has “immigrated”. Please be cautious of this company and the director (Uriel Gochin).
0 replies
72 months ago
FNB Retains UIF TERS Funds paid for Employees
UIF TERS fund payment made into our FNB business account, which is overdrawn has not been released for payment to employees. FNB said a secondary account needs to be opened, this is however incorrect and against the act / law. On 25 March 2020, the Minister of Employment and Labour signed a directive implementing the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) C19-TERS[1] programme. An amendment to this directive was Gazetted on 8 April 2020 (signed by the Minster on 6 April 2020). A further two directives were signed on 16 and 20 April 2020 respectively, however these are yet to be Gazetted. There was some initial confusion, however on 29 April 2020, the UIF issued a new FAQ publication, which has answered some questions for employers wishing to claim from the UIF, and is in line with all four Directives issued. Important Clarifications: As mentioned in our previous alerts, the UIF landscape has been very fluid since the advent of COVID-19(see previous alerts attached). — The employer does not require a dedicated bank account for sole use of the management of UIF benefits received from the UIF, but must be in a position to track the payments and report to the UIF on these if requested. I have however opened a secondary account for the funds to be released, but I am still waiting for the funds so I can pay staff who need to live.
210 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
2 (11.764705882352942%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
0 (0%)
1 Star
15 (88.23529411764706%)