Cell C to face tribunal in dispute over R11k roaming charge

Image source: freepik from Freepik

Bill limit

Williams said she had spoken at length with an operator at the Cell C national call centre before her visit to France in May 2022. She requested that her monthly bill limit be increased by R2000 to R3785 for international roaming costs incurred. The operator agreed to that and confirmed the amount of R3785.

She activated the roaming for only a few hours on the 5 May 2022 to utilise Google maps. Later that same day, she purchased a French SIM card, which she used for the rest of her stay.

On 5 June 2022, she received an invoice from Cell C in which she was charged R11,265.32 for international roaming expenses incurred from 5-6 May 2022, charges that exceeded her monthly bill cap by R7480.32.

Williams objected to the invoice, but Cell C notified her that her that she “could not place a bill limit on international roaming charges”.

When her attorney, Trudie Broekmann Attorneys, a South African expert on consumer protection, requested a refund from Cell C, which the company rejected.

International roaming clause

The Cell C attorney, Julia Haywood, in her response said the basis of their refusal was 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.

Cell C also cannot guarantee the accuracy of the limits set, or that such limits will be set timeously due to the delays from foreign networks.

Williams said she insisted in her conversation with the Cell C operator that the cap be set on R2000 for roaming charges (a cap of R3785 for calls and data and roaming charges), and after checking with the manager, the operator on behalf of Cell C agreed to this, which created the impression with her that her roaming cap was indeed R2000.

“I would never have thought the clause (which was quoted by the Cell C attorney) would mean that a cap of R2000 is extended all the way up to R11,265.32, more than five times the amount I was expecting,” Williams said.

Consumer Protection Act

Broekmann is adamant that Cell C has contravened the Consumer Protection Act.

Section 4(5)(b) prohibits the service provider from making any misleading or deceptive statements or a statement which is likely to mislead or deceive a consumer in any dealings in the ordinary course of business, she says.

Broekmann says section 29 and section 41 prohibit a service provider from misleading consumers in respect of the advantages of a product and from failing to disclose a material fact.

“She (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,” says Broekmann.

Broekmann says the Consumer Protection Act clearly states that a supplier must not enter into an agreement to supply services at an unfair price or on terms that are unfair, unreasonable and unjust.

The portion of the roaming charges in excess of the R2000 cap which Cell C charged Williams is an unreasonable, unfair and unjust amount, she stated.

Broekmann said the case before the National Consumer Tribunal is important for so many South African consumers due to repeated exploitation by cellphone networks on international roaming costs, and with no real recourse available.

The case is set to be heard by the Tribunal on Friday, 27 September 2024 at 10am.