Cellphone contracts: how the Consumer Protection Act benefits you

DarkStreet

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
1,284
I'm not sure this affects the cell operators much: at the moment you still have to pay cancellation charges if you want to cancel your contract and after the act comes into the play nothing changes, unless I missed the point?

I wish somebody would publish a layman's terms document of the act so we know what rights we have after the act comes into play.
 

Mars

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
11,005
I'm not sure this affects the cell operators much: at the moment you still have to pay cancellation charges if you want to cancel your contract and after the act comes into the play nothing changes, unless I missed the point?

I wish somebody would publish a layman's terms document of the act so we know what rights we have after the act comes into play.

No dude. Right now if I wanted to cancel my Autopage contract 7 months early it would cost me almost R4k. Thats R500 more than if I just let it run its course. How is that fair? Under the new CPA I would be paying closer to R400.
 

AniV

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
1,142
At present the cancellation charges on cellphone contracts are ridiculous. Usually equal to the cost (if not more than) what you would have paid anyway except it all has to be paid immediately.

What they're likely to do is seperate the cellphone unit and the contract into two distinct units. If you take out a contract with a fancy phone, and a month later give notice to cancel, the 10% max fee might not cover the cost of the "free' cellphone you got. By splitting them, you can cancel your contract independently from your handheld's payments.
Well, at least, I would do that if I were them. It gives the consumer a lot more options by not restricting which phone you can get on which contract, or which contract you have to take to get a certain phone.

Alternatively the contract prices will just be such that 10% will cover the cost of the phone. And that would suck. This is a chance to revamp the cellular industry. At the moment all you have is contract (all monthly payments) or prepaid (buy it all yourself) options. We need to put something in between those two.
I know plenty of people who would like to have a smartphone but don't want to get a contract, but also don't have 3-6k to drop on the phone. Imagine if you could get the phone you wanted on a contract for just the phone! And separate to that choose the airtime/data package you want!
 

MickeyD

RIP
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
139,117
No dude. Right now if I wanted to cancel my Autopage contract 7 months early it would cost me almost R4k. Thats R500 more than if I just let it run its course. How is that fair? Under the new CPA I would be paying closer to R400.
Not really. afaik the CPA will not be applicable to contracts entered into before 25 April 2010 and there is protection for the suppliers w.r.t. early termination.
 

Ockie

Resident Lead Bender
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
52,669
OK....so basically that is how VSP has been doing business ever since I started working. No big deal then for us....we have been having it! :)
 

Mars

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
11,005
Not really. afaik the CPA will not be applicable to contracts entered into before 25 April 2010 and there is protection for the suppliers w.r.t. early termination.

yea I know I'm screwed on this contract. I meant if the CPA where in place when I took it out. I have resigned myself to waiting until September to be rid of crappy auto-page for good. /spit
 

[Quattro]

Banned
Joined
Oct 13, 2010
Messages
916
I'm not sure this affects the cell operators much: at the moment you still have to pay cancellation charges if you want to cancel your contract and after the act comes into the play nothing changes, unless I missed the point?

I wish somebody would publish a layman's terms document of the act so we know what rights we have after the act comes into play.

Wait, so you signed a 24 month comtract committing that you will pay for 24 months? Now you complaining about it? Signature + legally binding document = don't complain!!!
 

MickeyD

RIP
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
139,117
OK....so basically that is how VSP has been doing business ever since I started working. No big deal then for us....we have been having it! :)

From a 1000 presentation we attended...

Consequences-cancellation fee

the Supplier—
may impose a reasonable cancellation penaltywith respect to any goods supplied, or discounts granted, to the consumer in contemplation of the agreement enduring for its intended fixed term, if any; and

must credit the consumer with any amount that remains the propertyof the consumer as of the date of cancellation.
 

[Quattro]

Banned
Joined
Oct 13, 2010
Messages
916
No dude. Right now if I wanted to cancel my Autopage contract 7 months early it would cost me almost R4k. Thats R500 more than if I just let it run its course. How is that fair? Under the new CPA I would be paying closer to R400.

You also agreed to the terms of paying for 24 months, are you keeping to your word? No, so why should they?
 

MickeyD

RIP
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
139,117
The amount?

Cancellation fee

For purposes of section 14(3), a reasonable credit or charge as contemplated in section 14(4)(c) may not exceed 10% of the amount which would have been payable by the consumer for the remainder of the intended fixed term, excluding interest, if any.
 

[Quattro]

Banned
Joined
Oct 13, 2010
Messages
916
Cellphone contracts: how the Consumer Protection Act benefits you

Cellular operators may have to reassess the way they handle contracts when the Consumer Protection Act comes in force

Is that all she said? She's not a very good telecoms lawyer.

What about the 6 month return policy? What the 3 month warranty on repairs? What about the 'not fit for purpose clause?'

Consumers that are misinformed will benefit a lot from this act, although its supposed to protect some consumers its open to abuse from some idiots, some have already posted in this thread...
 

MickeyD

RIP
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
139,117
[Quattro];5690411 said:
Is that all she said? She's not a very good telecoms lawyer.

What about the 6 month return policy? What the 3 month warranty on repairs? What about the 'not fit for purpose clause?'

Consumers that are misinformed will benefit a lot from this act, although its supposed to protect some consumers its open to abuse from some idiots, some have already posted in this thread...
Care to be specific?
 

Drunkard #1

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,668
[Quattro];5690363 said:
Wait, so you signed a 24 month comtract committing that you will pay for 24 months? Now you complaining about it? Signature + legally binding document = don't complain!!!

[Quattro];5690375 said:
You also agreed to the terms of paying for 24 months, are you keeping to your word? No, so why should they?

Guess who's going to be butt raped by the CPA. Hint: You are. Let me sum up the changes.

Old rules

Big abusive corporation to private individual - "You've got two choices: Take it or leave it."

New rules

Protected consumer to abusive corporation - "Bend."

[Quattro];5690411 said:
Is that all she said? She's not a very good telecoms lawyer.

What about the 6 month return policy? What the 3 month warranty on repairs? What about the 'not fit for purpose clause?'

Consumers that are misinformed will benefit a lot from this act, although its supposed to protect some consumers its open to abuse from some idiots, some have already posted in this thread...

You forgot about S.61 - Consequential damages. That's not limited to 6 months. So if my phone breaks after 18 months, the supplier gets to pay for me to rent a replacement while mine is being repaired.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm one of those idiots you were referring to.:D
 

drs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
119
Not sure why Quattro is against this.

Because there's no such thing as a free lunch. Perhaps Quattro owns a business which'll have to deal with "idiots" abusing the protections they're being given? Or perhaps Quattro realises that every business which is going to face increased costs from helping the "idiots" is just going to pass those costs on to all of their customers?
 

milomak

Honorary Master
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
12,571
Because there's no such thing as a free lunch. Perhaps Quattro owns a business which'll have to deal with "idiots" abusing the protections they're being given? Or perhaps Quattro realises that every business which is going to face increased costs from helping the "idiots" is just going to pass those costs on to all of their customers?

Those businesses that are competitive and manage customer satisfaction should face few of those problems

------
Sent from my N1 using Tapatalk
 

Freaksta

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
3,748
Those businesses that are competitive and manage customer satisfaction should face few of those problems

------
Sent from my N1 using Tapatalk

Agree 100% with you, the others rake in billions each year im sure they will find a way to rape the consumer down another avenue.
 

Freaksta

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
3,748
Those businesses that are competitive and manage customer satisfaction should face few of those problems

------
Sent from my N1 using Tapatalk

Agree 100% with you, the others rake in billions each year im sure they will find a way to rape the consumer down another avenue.
 

Drunkard #1

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,668
Because there's no such thing as a free lunch. Perhaps Quattro owns a business which'll have to deal with "idiots" abusing the protections they're being given? Or perhaps Quattro realises that every business which is going to face increased costs from helping the "idiots" is just going to pass those costs on to all of their customers?

So business should have free rein to abuse consumers who've got no real choice? Consumers who can't afford to take the likes of Vodacom and Monochoice to the high court should be denied justice? How is that fair? Because it keeps prices down? Um, no - prices are exorbitant in this country, so that's a false reason. Because faceless corporations are inherently bad at customer service? No, that doesn't sound like a very good reason to me. So why should they be allowed to abuse consumers?

The companies that are going to be hit hardest by this Act, are the ones who abuse consumers the most. Plain and simple. If your business model is to abuse consumers through negligence or greed, you're going to suffer. If you make the odd innocent mistake, you haven't got much to worry about.

These are the new rules. Adapt or die.
 
Top