RETRIEVER FINTECH - DISGRACEFUL BEHAVIOR!!!

 Mr Zindel,  Your complaint on Hellopeter of 9 July 2019 refers. We also refer to your e-mails of 9, 12 and 15 July 2019 and our attorney’s letter of 15 July 2019.  On 9 July 2019 we replied to your e-mail by describing how our business works and on whose behalf we act. We also refunded all amounts collected from you which we in turn addressed with our instructing client. We further informed you that we will thoroughly investigate the matter and revert to you. In your e-mail of 9 July 2019 you state that you were “holding on to speak to someone for an hour” but on your Hellopeter complaint that you’ve “been holding on the line for 40 minutes” yet the recording of your entire call in our possession is only 4:52 minutes long.  On 12 July 2019 you threatened us with legal action whilst knowing that we are investigating your complaint.  On 15 July 2019 our attorney wrote to you as follows: 

1. Setting out in great detail how our business operates and who provides us with the debit order mandates;
2. That on receipt of a complaint, we suspend the queried account and demand certain information from the subscriber whom provided us with the debit order mandate to process on their behalf;
3. That we do not create debit order mandates;
4. We are not involved in any criminal activities as alleged by you;
5. That our business practices do not constitute harmful business practices as defined by the National Consumer Commission;
6. We provided you with the debit order mandate provided to us by our client (the subscriber); and
7. Confirming that we are still investigating your complaint and the debit order mandate.

 On 15 July 2019 you responded to our attorney as follows: 

1. The address on the mandate is for an address in Soshanguve which you found “hysterical” (we find this stance highly prejudicial and defamatory);
2. You are unhappy with the way in which we treated your complaint (from the above it is clear that we have dealt with each aspect of your complaint, discussed the matter with you telephonically for almost five minutes and replied to each of your e-mails);
3. You allege that your time has been wasted and require us to pay you for one hour’s tariff for the alleged phone call (which according to the recorded conversation lasted almost five minutes); and
4. Should we not pay your hourly tariff, you will issue a summons against us which you will also provide to the media (this threat complies fully with the elements of the crime of extortion in that your statement seeks a patrimonial advantage by intentionally and unlawfully subjecting us to pressure which, according to your wishes, would induce us to submit to your demands).

 In light of the above, it is clear that we have fully complied with our duties in our attempts to investigate and finalise your complaint.  Regards 
The Retriever Team
011 238 2600