Have you experienced SMS billing or spam problems?

xrapidx said:
What isn't stated his what happens with the appeals - and whether the WASPs actually ever pay the fines.
Click to expand...

Lounger said:
I think you're right. My own experience is that the whole thing is just swept beneath the carpet and they stop updating you after 6 months or so. WASPA looking after their own.
Click to expand...

dominic said:
Hi

All of the appeals are published - http://www.waspa.org.za/code/search.php - so it can be checked.
Given that appeals are lodged by WASPA members (and not the public) my non-specific assessment from being involved is that most adverse findings are upheld although fines may be reduced. An appeals panels is necessary to catch adjudication errors (which happen).

Failure to enforce payment has been an issue before - not sure as to current status but again this information is publicly available using the "Fines status" checkbox on the search page linked to above. Where a sanction is not complied with it is a further offence and a further complaint is initiated.
Click to expand...

I'm going to see if I can find mine - my complaint was upheld, and then the provider appealed and that was the last I heard ... going back two years now.

Here's the complaint: http://www.waspa.org.za/code/download/6542.pdf

Here's the appeal: http://www.waspa.org.za/code/download/6542_appeal.pdf

Glad the appeal was partially upheld, but as per a previous complaint, I can't fathom how the panel does not find the first message from them as harmful : "We agree that this is not unduly harmful in the first instance in that it does make clear the fact that the service is an adult service"

where the message was:
"Dozens of HOT & HORNY CHICKS are on the line right NOW!! CALL & CHAT LIVE!! on 082239932"

Apparently if a 12 year old had the number at the time - that wouldn't be harmful :rolleyes:

And they semi-contradict themselves:
" The panel finds the fine imposed by the adjudicator excessive, even
given the seriousness of the need to protect children. The panel
reduces the fine to R50,000.00"

I really don't get some of the WASPA rulings.
 
Last edited:
dominic said:
And aside from the bad communication from WASPA about the appeal do you feel that the matter was satisfactorily handled?
Click to expand...

See above - I do find the process a bit confusing.

Here's another complaint, basically the WASP did not respond so my complaint was not upheld.... I asked for clarification a few times but was ignored:
http://www.waspa.org.za/code/download/9553.pdf
9. The Member did not respond to either of these emails, nor was any subsequent
response whatever received to the complaint.

15. The complaint against the Member is not upheld.
Click to expand...


This implies that the easiest way for a company not to be responsbile for their actions is to not respond?
 
Don't know about the other networks, but Vodacom is pretty notorious for allowing abuses to take place on their networks. I was one of those who only after reading about xrapix's complaint realised that one of these WASPs had 'signed me up' without my knowledge to some stupid service. Complaining to Vodacom got me nowhere, complaining to WASPA did help.

BUT I think the issue here for most of us is not whether or not the complaint was handled properly or not, but the simple fact that we don't want our service providers to allow these creatures to spam us and make it our responsibility to go through the motions of having to get an 'opt out' sorted. Unless we give confirmed permission, no-one should be allowed to spam us, it's as simple as that.
 
Durandal said:
Don't know about the other networks, but Vodacom is pretty notorious for allowing abuses to take place on their networks. I was one of those who only after reading about xrapix's complaint realised that one of these WASPs had 'signed me up' without my knowledge to some stupid service. Complaining to Vodacom got me nowhere, complaining to WASPA did help.

BUT I think the issue here for most of us is not whether or not the complaint was handled properly or not, but the simple fact that we don't want our service providers to allow these creatures to spam us and make it our responsibility to go through the motions of having to get an 'opt out' sorted. Unless we give confirmed permission, no-one should be allowed to spam us, it's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

Exactly - you get subscribed without your permission to some underhanded company - and then need to pay up to R2 (IIRC) to unsubscribe? Seems there's a huge incentive not to provide an easy "block-all" type service.
 
Do you know about this one...?

Taken from the WASPA Code of Conduct:

6.2.9. During any calendar month, if the total cost of any service exceeds R200 for that month:

(a) Where the WASP is in control of the billing (e.g. an OBS), a notification must be sent to the customer that they have reached this limit and a communication is required from the customer, confirming acceptance of any costs over this amount, prior to any additional costs being billed.

(b) Where the WASP is not in control of the billing (e.g. the customer sends an SMS to a premium rated number), the member must send a notification to the customer once they have reached this limit.

6.2.10. During any calendar month, after the first threshold notification, when the total cost of any service reaches R400, and when it reaches any multiple of R200 thereafter, an additional notification must be sent to the customer notifying them of the total cost incurred for that service so far.

6.2.11. The member providing the service must keep a record of the confirmation provided by the customer (for 6.2.9 (a)) or the notification sent to the customer (for 6.2.9 (b)).

The question I have is; what do I get from complaining to WASPA? Do I get the amount that was charged of which I was not notified?

I have about three months in which I was not notified that I had reached my limit (a service which I had requested for - email confirming activation of this service available in my inbox) and there has never been any notification of me exceeding R400 or the increaments of R200 thereafter, which I did on very numerous occassions.

Another question is; since this code of conduct is dated 13 October 2010, would these sections still apply? I would guess that they would because they were not part of the amendments indicated in the document code of conduct. I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Oh I ROFLed. Strike media strikes again!!

You know their CEO sits on the waspa committee. ..
 
Yuck. With respect to the adjudicator concerned not sure i agree with that one - basically misunderstood the nature of the complaint. The issue is not whether or not the member responds but that there is sufficient evidence of the complainant being subscribed without subscribing. Clearly the process is not perfect and afaik WASPA are putting in place better systems for training adjudicators.

in general where there is no response the established process is for the adjudicator to accept the version advanced by the complainant which will almost (see above) inevitably lead to an adverse finding against the member who did not respond.

If a member chooses not to respond on a number of occasions this should be seen as a separate breach of section 3.1 which requires professional dealings with consumers and WASPA

xrapidx said:
See above - I do find the process a bit confusing.

Here's another complaint, basically the WASP did not respond so my complaint was not upheld.... I asked for clarification a few times but was ignored:
http://www.waspa.org.za/code/download/9553.pdf

This implies that the easiest way for a company not to be responsbile for their actions is to not respond?
Click to expand...
 
I pretty much agree. The law regarding spam does allow the marketer to make one approach to obtain your consent however....but this does not equate to signing you up for a subscription service or distribution list where you have not given that consent.

Durandal said:
Don't know about the other networks, but Vodacom is pretty notorious for allowing abuses to take place on their networks. I was one of those who only after reading about xrapix's complaint realised that one of these WASPs had 'signed me up' without my knowledge to some stupid service. Complaining to Vodacom got me nowhere, complaining to WASPA did help.

BUT I think the issue here for most of us is not whether or not the complaint was handled properly or not, but the simple fact that we don't want our service providers to allow these creatures to spam us and make it our responsibility to go through the motions of having to get an 'opt out' sorted. Unless we give confirmed permission, no-one should be allowed to spam us, it's as simple as that.
Click to expand...
 
xrapidx said:
Exactly - you get subscribed without your permission to some underhanded company - and then need to pay up to R2 (IIRC) to unsubscribe? Seems there's a huge incentive not to provide an easy "block-all" type service.
Click to expand...

i think opt-out has to be at the lowest tariff rate available - should not be more than R1. also i think that once the Consumer Protection Act kicks in this charge may have to fall away (i.e. unsubscribe/opt-out should be free)
 
dominic said:
Yuck. With respect to the adjudicator concerned not sure i agree with that one - basically misunderstood the nature of the complaint. The issue is not whether or not the member responds but that there is sufficient evidence of the complainant being subscribed without subscribing. Clearly the process is not perfect and afaik WASPA are putting in place better systems for training adjudicators.

in general where there is no response the established process is for the adjudicator to accept the version advanced by the complainant which will almost (see above) inevitably lead to an adverse finding against the member who did not respond.

If a member chooses not to respond on a number of occasions this should be seen as a separate breach of section 3.1 which requires professional dealings with consumers and WASPA
Click to expand...

This took me quite a few complaints to Vodacom for resolution - I was eventually refunded and the WASP claimed it was a database migration problem, and that I did in fact not subscribe to the service.

The WASPA ruling was just disappointing, as I believe the WASP or company providing the spamming interface was or is owned by Vodacom - leading me to believe that depending on who you know, a complaint against a WASP can easily be dismissed.

dominic said:
i think opt-out has to be at the lowest tariff rate available - should not be more than R1. also i think that once the Consumer Protection Act kicks in this charge may have to fall away (i.e. unsubscribe/opt-out should be free)
Click to expand...

If it does fall away - I won't mind getting these messages as much - as long as it costs me nothing to un-subscribe, and I no longer get them.
 
McCrazieGoalz said:
Taken from the WASPA Code of Conduct:

6.2.9. During any calendar month, if the total cost of any service exceeds R200 for that month:

(a) Where the WASP is in control of the billing (e.g. an OBS), a notification must be sent to the customer that they have reached this limit and a communication is required from the customer, confirming acceptance of any costs over this amount, prior to any additional costs being billed.

(b) Where the WASP is not in control of the billing (e.g. the customer sends an SMS to a premium rated number), the member must send a notification to the customer once they have reached this limit.

6.2.10. During any calendar month, after the first threshold notification, when the total cost of any service reaches R400, and when it reaches any multiple of R200 thereafter, an additional notification must be sent to the customer notifying them of the total cost incurred for that service so far.

6.2.11. The member providing the service must keep a record of the confirmation provided by the customer (for 6.2.9 (a)) or the notification sent to the customer (for 6.2.9 (b)).

The question I have is; what do I get from complaining to WASPA? Do I get the amount that was charged of which I was not notified?

I have about three months in which I was not notified that I had reached my limit (a service which I had requested for - email confirming activation of this service available in my inbox) and there has never been any notification of me exceeding R400 or the increaments of R200 thereafter, which I did on very numerous occassions.

Another question is; since this code of conduct is dated 13 October 2010, would these sections still apply? I would guess that they would because they were not part of the amendments indicated in the document code of conduct. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

It is possible that an adjudicator who holds that the WASP is in breach of those sections would be required to refund...personally i would also look at the value you received from the service as well (but i think refunds are generally a good way to satisfy the complainant) and might go towards refunding the excess above R200 (i.e. your spend after not receiving the required notification). there would probably also be a fine applicable

the WASPA code is frequently updated and applies going forward from the date reflected on it - iirc these provisions have been part of the code for some time. you can check the "code archive" section of the WASPA site to see which version was applicable at the time they failed to send you the required notifications and then check that version to make sure the specific provisions were included in it
 
xrapidx said:
The WASPA ruling was just disappointing, as I believe the WASP or company providing the spamming interface was or is owned by Vodacom - leading me to believe that depending on who you know, a complaint against a WASP can easily be dismissed.
Click to expand...

having scanned through it i think disappointment is fair enough. i am not aware of any instances where a complaint has been dismissed based on connections or undue pressure but i also believe that it can be more difficult to deal with when one of the mobile networks is directly involved

remember that Vodacom, MTN and Cell C have their own WASPs which are members of WASPA but that Vodacom, MTN and Cell C are not members even though they themselves may be acting as WASPS...
 
dominic said:
having scanned through it i think disappointment is fair enough. i am not aware of any instances where a complaint has been dismissed based on connections or undue pressure but i also believe that it can be more difficult to deal with when one of the mobile networks is directly involved

remember that Vodacom, MTN and Cell C have their own WASPs which are members of WASPA but that Vodacom, MTN and Cell C are not members even though they themselves may be acting as WASPS...
Click to expand...

I suppose - it'll be really interesting to see how this plays out when the CPA comes into effect.
 
dominic said:
I pretty much agree. The law regarding spam does allow the marketer to make one approach to obtain your consent however....
Click to expand...

I disagree. There should be a general opt-out option on your contract that doesn't allow ANY marketer to approach you. 20, 30 once-off 'approaches' still equates to a lot of time wasted telling them to piss off, and costs the consumer his/her money in the process with the opt-out fees. Spam is spam, and we don't want it.
 
Durandal said:
I disagree. There should be a general opt-out option on your contract that doesn't allow ANY marketer to approach you. 20, 30 once-off 'approaches' still equates to a lot of time wasted telling them to piss off, and costs the consumer his/her money in the process with the opt-out fees. Spam is spam, and we don't want it.
Click to expand...

hell - preaching to the converted..but unfortunately that is not what the law of SA says no matter how much we may disagree
 
Would you believe it?

Hardly a day has passed since I replied to this thread, and I receive an SMS from Discovery Life stating that I have been opted in to receive 'Value Addded SMSs'.

Who do they think they are?:mad:
 
dominic said:
i hear your cynicism about the process but do you think he was happy with a R50 000 fine?
Click to expand...

According to Lorraine, they don't pay anything until the appeal is heard.

Next month it will have been 1 full year since the process started. What's the point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X