A Cape Town writer’s battle against Cell C over alleged unfair international roaming charges is being heard at the Consumer Tribunal.
The case, involving an R11 265 bill for a few hours' usage in France, was postponed on Friday following a request by Cell C to submit new information.
The matter concerns alleged Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (the CPA) violations as complainant Julie Williams said she was slapped with the bill despite Cell C allegedly agreeing on a monthly bill limit of R3785 for international roaming prior to her departure.
Cell C allegedly did not honour this based on a proviso in their fine print. However Williams argues this proviso is unfair, unreasonable, unjust and invalid according to the CPA. It was also not drawn to her attention as the Act requires, she said.
According to Williams, she had spoken at length with an operator at the Cell C call centre before her visit to France, requesting that her monthly bill limit be increased to R3785 for international roaming costs. She said the operator agreed to this and confirmed the amount.
Williams said she activated the roaming for a few hours on May 5 and then purchased a French SIM card late on May 5, which she used for the rest of her stay.
On June 5, 2022 Williams received an invoice from Cell C in which she was charged R11 265,32 for international roaming expenses. Williams objected to the invoice, and when her attorney, Trudie Broekmann, requested a refund from Cell C, this was rejected.
The rejection, Broekmann said, was based on a clause from Cell C’s international roaming terms and conditions which states that thresholds and monthly usage limits apply to international roaming; however there may be delays when imposing limits due to delays in billing records being received from foreign networks among others.
Broekmann said: “(Williams) was misled by Cell C in that the phone operator created the impression that she could cap her monthly bill for international roaming charges at exactly R3785 and she was further misled by an SMS from Cell C which created the impression that she would not incur any costs in excess of R3785 unless she increased the monthly bill limit.”
In postponing the matter, Presiding Tribunal member Dr Maria Peenze said: “The applicant seeks a determination of prohibited conduct by the respondent, and the respondent’s reputation in its industry would be impacted if the Tribunal finds in favour of the applicant. Therefore, the Tribunal is persuaded that it would be in the interest of justice and the principle of procedural fairness to postpone the matter to allow the respondent to apply to supplement its answering affidavit.”
Approached for comment, Cell C said they would comment after the tribunal had concluded as “investigations are still ongoing”.
Cape Times