Under construction

C.H. VAN WYK B.Sc., B.Sc. (Hons.), B.Iuris

__________________________________________________________
Tel: 011 463 4848

P.O. Box 67691
BRYANSTON

__________________________________________________________

18 February 2003

By Fax: 011 886 8798

FOR ATTENTION: SHARON BEAR

Messrs.Telkom

Sir,


TELEPHONE ACCOUNT: NUMBERS 011 463 4848 and 011 708 2576

I need to explain at the outset that, although the account holder of this account is a close corporation, I am the legal adviser and a member of the close corporation. For sake of convenience I will therefore refer herein to the service, and the telephone to which this letter pertains, as “my” service, or telephone, etc.


Telkom’s detailed billing shenanigans


1. As a brief and introductory summary I mention the following:

During 1995 I raised certain queries concerning this account, and despite an undertaking by Telkom that I need not make payments regarding the account, and that the service will not be suspended until Telkom had dealt with the queries, the service was suspended.

I have a detailed dossier, and tape recordings, containing factual details of the illegal and damaging suspensions of my service by Telkom.

The deplorable conduct referred to in the previous paragraph was repeated by Telkom on a number of occasions and when I was contracted for a year during 1997 as corporate lawyer to render a consultancy service to one of the largest companies in South Africa, I could no longer afford to have the uncertainty of a telephone service that is unexpectedly suspended without warning at the whim of a Telkom employee, and I therefore paid the disputed amount under protest, without prejudice, without admitting liability and solely in order to prevent the illegal and criminal actions of intimidation and extortion to which I had been subjected in this matter.

At the time when I made a payment (despite the fact that a dispute was pending) I made it clear that I am doing so to prevent serious prejudice.

I confirmed the mentioned facts in my letter of 15 June 2000, addressed to Telkom and delivered by hand, in which I stated the following:

“At the time when I made a payment, despite the fact that a dispute was pending, I made it clear that I am doing so to prevent serious prejudice to the CC and myself since I was in fact then rendering a consultancy service, as corporate legal adviser, under a one year contract, to one of the largest companies in South Africa. The lastmentioned fact was the reason why I made a payment despite the fact that a dispute had not been resolved.

I also stated the following in the letter:

“I therefore reiterate that, until I inform you to the contrary, the status quo regarding the condition of payment will endure.”

Therefore, all payments made on this account since the query was originally raised;

“were made under protest, without prejudice, without admitting liability and solely in order to prevent the illegal and criminal actions of intimidation to which the CC and I have been subjected in this matter.”

I also stated the following in my mentioned letter:

I therefore require you to revisit all the accounts that have been rendered since the problem arose in this matter…”

My request was however ignored, with typical Telkom arrogance, and was therefore never complied with.

2. In due course the telephone number, 708 2576, was added to this account and since then, and over a period of more than two years, I have been embroiled in efforts to procure detailed billing for the 708 2576 number from Telkom.

3. At this juncture I need to mention that before 708 2576 was added to this account, I disputed the correctness of the billing that was furnished to me for 463 4848, and that dispute was in due course extended to 708 2576.

In my efforts to procure the detailed billing I made a number of telephone calls and also addressed hand-delivered written communications to Telkom, particulars of which are inter alia the following

· 15 December 2000

I am paying this amount under protest and without prejudice and without admitting liability. I do so in order to prevent illegal and criminal termination of the service.

I have requested a meter check on numerous occasions.

· 16 January 2001

You have once more failed to furnish proper detailed billing. No billing for 708 2576 was included. I am still awaiting last month’s billing. Payment is under protest without admission of liability and purely to avoid illegal suspension.

· 15 February 2001

The same conditions apply to this payment as to previous payments. The manner in which we are ignored by you is deplorable.

· 15 March 2001

I make this payment under the same conditions as mentioned on my previous account. Why do you refuse to furnish detailed billing?

· 8 April 2001

Payment on same conditions as previously stated.

· 15 June 2001

Betaling geskied op dieselfde voorwaardes as voorheen vermeld.

· 18 December 2001

This payment is once more made under protest and purely to avoid your criminal suspension of my service. I want proper detailed billing.

· 15 January 2002

Paid under protest and on same conditions mentioned on previous accounts.

· 15 February 2002

Payment is made on the exact conditions as previously mentioned.

· 18 March 2002

Payment under protest…you persist with your refusal to furnish proper detailed billing.

· 13 April 2002

Payment is made on the same conditions as previously mentioned.

· 16 November 2001

I once more pay under protest and without admitting liability and purely to prevent an illegal suspension of my services.

I demand detailed billing for all accounts.

· 17 September 2001

Paid without prejudice-Please submit report on investigation.


At this juncture I need to remind the reader that at all times;

“the status quo regarding the condition of payment will endure.”;


the status quo being that all payments made on this account since the query was originally raised during 1995;

“were made under protest, without prejudice, without admitting liability and solely in order to prevent the illegal and criminal actions of intimidation to which the CC and I have been subjected in this matter.”

Last year my businesses associates and I decided that the year 2003 will be the year that we have a showdown with Telkom concerning inter alia the detailed billing issue, and I therefore commenced my offensive in January of this year.

I contacted one Sharon Bear and found her refreshingly helpful. I raised the issues of detailed billing and my defective cable woes and eventually, and during a period of approximately two weeks, I spent time on the issues, time that, even calculated at moderately costs, is worth R10 000. I will not deal with the cable issue in this letter. As regrds detailed billing, suffice it to say that after numerous telephone conversations, and after I was abused by Cindy Brand who inter alia;

• adopted the position that I am lying about the fact that I did not receive detailed billing for 708 2576;
• told me that she does not need to have the particular conversation with me;
• told me that she can (and will only) give me billing for a period of one year; and
• slammed the phone down on me;
  
  I eventually received in the post much more detailed billing than I ever received before, but I still did not receive full and proper billing.

Therefore, after all these years I still do not have proper detailed billing for the service that was allegedly rendered to me.

And yet, Telkom wishes that I pay without knowing what I am paying for.


Telkom’s cable defect fraud


1. During the period February 2002 to the present moment I also experienced a vast amount of problems with the data integrity of my telephone connecting for 463 4848 which caused considerable problems with my internet connection. The problems that I experienced was that I could not connect to the Internet with the fast modem of my laptop computer, and when connecting with the slow modem of my personal computer, I found that files were often corrupted during downloading.

When I reported the faults, I was subjected to all types of abuse. I was originally told that the fault lies with my equipment and after I had wasted an immense amount of time (over a period of several weeks, with my Internet service provider (ISP), and took my equipment in for testing on no less than two occasions, I was eventually advised (after several months) by the manufacturer of my laptop (Compaq), that I need to demand that Telkom tests the data integrity of my connection. When I demanded that Telkom checks the data integrity of the telephone line, I was advised that I need an ISDN line. This particular drivel has been presented to me on several occasions. My response was that more than 80% of the Internet connections are made without the facility of a digital connection. As it later became evident, Telkom did all this as a diversion and in order to fraudulently cover up the fact of a defect cable of which it was fully aware at all relevant times.

I may mention that I have kept an accurate record of all my communications concerning my woes regarding the quality of my telephone connection and my records reflect that I have had more than 100 communications with Telkom regarding the particular problem. And eventually Telkom conceded to me that the problem has all along been a cable that was inter alia damaged by contactors working in this area. I have therefore fraudulently been duped into believing that the fault lies with my equipment, or my service provider, or both. The damages that have been caused due to the wild goose chase on which I was sent by Telkom due to the fraudulent misrepresentation that was made to me, amount to tens of thousands of rands, and is for Telkom’s account..

To give an example: During the period 11 to 28 January 2003 I had at least 29 communications with Telkom regarding my accounting and technical problems. The damages that I have suffered in the process will obviously be for Telkom’s account. I also mention that during the communications I was accused by one Cindy Brand of Telkom’s accounts department of lying about the fact that I did not receive detailed billing for 708 2576. But more about Brand’s abusiveness will follow in later communications. Suffice it to say that I have informed both brand and Telkom that I will in due course claim an amount of R100 000 from her, and Telkom (as co-defendants) in an action based on iniuria, as a result of Brand’s insult.

I reiterate, over a period of nearly a year, Telkom has fraudulently concealed from me the fact that the high and detrimental noise level on my telephone line is due to a defect in a Telkom cable, a defect of which Telkom has been aware at all relevant times. The upshot of Telkom’s fraudulent misrepresentation concerning (or fraudulent concealment of) the cable defect is that;

• I spent time to the tune of 100 hours repeatedly reporting the fault and attending to the technicians who subsequently visited my premises;
• I spent a considerable amount of time with my ISP, unnecessarily changing settings on my computer;
• I paid in full for a service that is only partly usable:
• I suffered damages due to the defective service;

I was compelled to connect to the Internet with a slow modem that led to a substantial waste of time. In that regard I need to mention that, in my experience, by connecting to the Internet with a 28Kmodem instead of a 56K modem, the time to perform a task is much more than doubled.


Telkom’s Human Rights Abuses


1. In dealing with Telkom’s abuse of my human rights, I start off by quoting the following from the Bill of Rights of The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa:

BILL OF RIGHTS

Human dignity

10. Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected.

Access to information

32 (1) Everyone has the right of access to –

(a) any information held by the state; and

(b) any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights.

(2) National legislation must be enacted to give effect to this right, and may provide for reasonable measures to alleviate the administrative and financial burden on the state.

Access to courts

34. Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent or impartial tribunal or forum.

In what follows I will deal with Telkom’s human rights abuses under the heading, Access to courts, Access to information, and Human dignity

2. Access to courts

Although the Bill of Rights stipulates that, everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent or impartial tribunal or forum, Telkom succeeds (due to the monopoly that it enjoys) to effectively deprive its customers of their right of access to due legal process. To explain how Telkom succeeds in perpetrating this particular human rights abuse, I need to make an excursion and deal briefly with the service contract that Telkom concludes with its customers.

If a party to a service contact becomes involved in a dispute, then the dispute needs to be ventilated in an action in a court of law, or other suitable judicial forum. If one party alleges that a payment is due, and the other party alleges that the service for which the payment has been claimed has not been rendered, then the only place where the dispute can be settled, is a judicial forum. In the proceedings that follow, the service provider will then bear the onus to prove his claim, and the burden of proof will be that he needs to prove his claim on a preponderance of probabilities. The person from whom the service provider claims payment need not prove anything, and if the service provider does not succeed in discharging the onus, then the court will not even require from the customer to lead any evidence, and the service provider’s case will be dismissed when the court grants absolution of the instance.

If what has just been stated is applied to the relationship of Telkom and its customers, then Telkom needs to prove that all the telephone calls were made at the point where the service was installed by Telkom. I reiterate, Telkom needs to prove that all the telephone calls were made at the point where the service was installed. Now Telkom knows that it simply cannot prove those facts because there are several point between the customer’s location and the telephone exchange where someone could tap into customers line and make a telephone call with impunity. And that does indeed happen regularly and is indubitable happening as I pen these words. And, more often than not, the illegal criminal telephone calls are made by Telkom employees, as is clear from the following few (of many) examples of Telkom billing mischief;

(a) I have built up a substantial dossier of telephone calls that were not made but for which Telkom raised a debit. One recent example occurred on 4 April 2002 when I recorded a conversation that a Telkom employee had on my telephone line. I established the identity of the employee, the number that he dialled and the duration of the call (3 minutes and 20 seconds).

(b) Some time ago my daughter, Maria, noticed that there is somebody talking on her telephone line in Chartwell. When she looked out of the window she saw a Telkom van parked next to a pole and a technician sitting at the top of the pole. She recorded the conversation, which clearly proved to be a private conversation. Armed with her tape recorder she took a casual stroll to the pole, and when the technician had finished his amorous conversation on her Telkom account, she asked him whether there is something wrong with the telephone line. When he answered in the affirmative, she confronted him with the tape recording and he nearly fell of the pole. He conceded that there is nothing wrong with the line and that he merely ascended the pole to make a private telephone call. He also admitted that he does so regularly, and that that is an activity that all Telkom technicians engage in. After he had spoken to my Maria he realised that, although he had descended from the pole, he was now really up the pole.

I may mention that my Maria thereafter presented me with the evidence and I told her that, as is the case with other facts that she has gathered, we will save it for a rainy day. That day has now arrived.

Incidentally, the other facts that I have alluded to are inter alia the following abuses to which Telkom subjected her:

She was billed for phone calls that Telkom alleged she made while her telephone was illegally suspended by Telkom. So, Telkom therefore delivered to her a double whammy, it suspend her service despite the fact that it had no reason to do so, and then still debited her with telephone calls that she could not possibly have made because the service was suspended.

Incidentally, at the particular time the service was suspended by Telkom because they denied that they were paid. The fact that proof of payment at the Umbilo post office in Durban was presented to Telkom by Maria, made no impression on Telkom. It still persisted with iys denial that a payment was made, inter alia stating that there is no post office in Umbilo. This saga continued for approximately a year when Telkom eventually conceded the payment.

After a particular service was discontinued, Telkom continued to bill her for rental and telephone calls that were made by using a service that simply does did not exist.

(c) The Star of 8 November 1994 contains a report of Yovanka Stojakovic, who discovered a Telkom employee sitting on a pole and ostensible talking to his girlfriend.

(d) On 6 February 1993, the Citizen contained a report of teenagers who tapped into telephones of other users and made overseas calls, thereby running up a bill of approximately R100 000. Telkom conceded that the calls were made, stating that it discovered that the teenagers connected illegal wires from computer equipment to the hapless customer’s telephone cable.

(e) The Star of 22 February 1993 contains particulars of one L. Randall who, after not having had no success with his query regarding an exorbitant bill from Telkom, and after having exchanged 24 letters with Telkom, finally resorted to a court action, and in that manner procured the cooperation of Telkom, who credited his account with the amount in dispute.

(f) About ten years ago a 75-year man was murdered and his homestead was razed to the ground. That however, did not prevent Telkom for billing him with R31 026 six months after the tragic events.

(g) Also about ten years ago, a Rosebank businessman became involved in a clearly defined dispute with Telkom regarding his domestic telephone account of R2 066. Instead of resorting to a court action against its customer to prove the indebtedness, Telkom threatened to “cut off” the telephone services to the customer’s businesses.

The incident was dealt with a newspaper article by a consumer journalist. In the article Telkom was accused of blackmail. Although the stated facts clearly support the crime of blackmail, it is clear that Telkom is also guilty of the crimes of extortion and intimidation, and I will therefore deal with the mentioned crimes in what follows later in this letter. Incidentally, the hapless businessman is quoted in the article as saying the following:

“I disputed this amount showing that my home phone account had averaged R66 over a long period of time. Telkom was not interested in investigating my compliant about the unacceptably high bill and said they would disconnect all three of my phones if I did not pay immediately. I could not have my coffee shop phones cut off. I’ve paid up but am prepared to shut up.”

I will in due course contact the particular victim and advise him that he can still, at this late stage, lay a criminal charge against Telkom.

Therefore, one must clearly appreciate that Telkom is as scared of court proceeding in enforcing its claims, as the devil is of holy water, hence its reason for resorting to blackmail, intimidation, and extortion.

3. Access to information

Although the Bill of Rights stipulates that everyone has the right of access to any information held by the state and any other person, and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights, Telkom is clearly as apprehensive about furnishing detailed billing to its customers as the devil is scared of holy water.

Therefore, it appears that Telkom customers need to be clear on one thing, and that is that Telkom does not take kindly to the access to information stipulation in the Bill of Rights, has no intention of aligning its conduct to the particular legislation, and wishes that its customers pay without knowing what they are paying for.

4. Human dignity

Although the Bill of Rights stipulates that everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected, Telkom has no intention whatsoever of adhering to the particular enactment. If a Telkom customer does not pay an account then, irrespective of whether their is a clearly defined dispute concerning the account, Telkom suspends the customer’s service and publishes to any person who attempt to phone the hapless customer, that the customer has failed to pay his account.

It so happens that, over the years Telkom had on numerous occasions defamed me, and my businesses, and business associates by falsely creating the impression that we have failed to pay our account, when that was in fact never the case.

On one particular occasion we were compelled to take strenuous action and threatened to procure a High Court interdict against Telkom, when 14 clients of one of businesses informed us that they are no longer prepared to do business with us. The reason that they advanced for their position, were the following:

o They are unable to reach us by fax.

o The fact that we do not pay our telephone account indicates that we have financial problems and they can therefore not accept the risk of contracting with an enterprise that may fold overnight.

I was ready to launch proceeding for obtaining an interdict in the High Court, when, to our utter surprise, an employee of Telkom’s Office of the Area Manager, North Rand, agreed to inform our clients that Telkom was at fault regarding the whole affair. We faxed through a list of the customers and their telephone numbers and Telkom eventually communicated with the clients. The letter of Telkomt inter alia contained the following wording:

“This letter is to confirm that the problem on the lines…is due to a Telkom error.”

“Our apologies for the inconvenience”

Sadly, a number of the clients did however not return to our business and we suffered irreparable harm due to the fact that Telkom chose to ride rough-shod over our right to human dignity.

Who am I

1. Apart from having been a lawyer for more than thirty years (and I am still retained as such by a number of enterprises), I am also an investigative reporter.

2. I will now deal briefly with an example of my journalistic endeavours as investigative reporter, being a special report that I did on the pilot licence scam of a few years ago. My actions as investigative journalist were the reason why Trevor Abrahams, the CEO of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), and personal buddy of Thabo Mbeki and Dullah Omar, was originally arrested. This was due to the fact that I demanded, as member of the public, to cross-examine Abrahams at the public enquiry into the pilot licence scam. When I addressed my demand to the chairman of the proceedings (a judge) I stated that the panel has failed in their duty to test the evidence of Abrahams, and that I need to do so in the interest of justice. After a few adjournments, during which the three panel members caucused extensively behind closed doors, I eventually had my way, cross-examined Abrahams, and within hours thereafter he was behind bars. I subsequently wrote an article entitled;

‘SPECIAL AVIATION REPORT
Investigating the antics of the so-called
“Independant” Review Panel of the CAA’.

The report was published in the August 2000 edition of SA Flyer. All of this took place while people were leaving the country due to death threats, and the police insisted that one of my journalistic sources, a senior police officer, Superintendent Manie Esterhuizen, and his family, be placed in a witness protection program.

3. I have created a web site entitled, do_not_pay_telkom. The site is similar to the web site, neverflysaa, that was created by one Vern Six of Houston, Texas regarding alleged shoddy service that he received from South African Airways. One need only to have visited the web site at the time, to see how many people discovered, after they had read Six’s web page, that they had problems with South African Airways, and also to see how the company’s refusal, or failure to give proper attention to the client’s complaints, caused the airline some considerable grief. What is particularly important is that the complaints of Vern Six are relatively frivolous and only point to bad service by South African Airways. That is in stark contrast to the actions of Telkom, with whom I have issues concerning this account since 1995, where the issue was not only bad service and arrogance, but included criminal and unconscionable conduct such as the following:

• Taking the law into its own hands by illegally suspending services whilst there was a clearly defined dispute concerning the account.
• Intimidation in the form of illegal threats to suspend the service if I do not pay the account despite the raised dispute.
• Falsely and fraudulently publishing defamatory remarks (that a telephone service had been suspended due to non-payment of the Telkom) account.
• Fraudulently defaming me, the businesses, and my business associates in the businesses, by illegally publishing false and defamatory facts concerning the mentioned entities, false facts that adversely effects our credibility, creditworthiness and business reputations.
• aliciously depriving me of my telephone service on the fraudulent pretext that there is a defect in the cable concerning the particular service, the reason for the deplorable conduct being that I accosted Telkom on behalf of a relative who had as similar problem regarding an account with Telkom.
• Allowing its oyees to tap into the telephone lines of my service and make telephone calls on my account.
• Allowing an employee to illegally an criminally threaten to deprive me of my telephone service when I phoned him (after he had slammed the telephone down on me during a telephone conversation that I had with him) and asked him the following question:
  
  “Toe ons netnou ‘n gesprek gehad het, het jy die foon op my neergesit”
  
  The response of the particular individual was:
  
  “Mnr. Van Wyk, jy praat weer met my so.”
  
  When I asked him once more whether he put the phone down on me, his response was:
  
  “Verstaan my mooi, jy praat weer met my so”;
  
  and then added the following:
  
  “As gevolg van jou houding gaan jy sonder fone wees.”
  
  
• Failing or refusing to take action against the particular obnoxious individual who threatened to deprive me of my telephone service for personal gratification and as punishment due to the fact that I asked him certain questions.

My do_not_pay_telkom website

1. As I have previously mentioned, I have created a web site entitled, do_not_pay_telkom.

2. The website contains this letter and also deals to a considerable extent with Telkom’s propensity for:

Taking the law into its own hands by illegally suspending services whilst there is a clearly defined dispute concerning the account.

Intimidation and extortion in the form of illegal threats to suspend the service if a customer does not pay the account despite the raised dispute.

Falsely and fraudulently publishing defamatory remarks (that a telephone service had been suspended due to non-payment of the Telkom account.

Fraudulently defaming people and their businesses by illegally publishing false and defamatory facts concerning the mentioned entities, false facts that adversely effect their credibility, creditworthiness and business reputations.

Allowing employees to tap into the telephone lines of Telkom customers and charging the customers for the telephone calls.

3. The website will contain full facts regarding criminal conduct to which Telkom subjected (and continuous to subject) its customers.

4. Particulars of Telkom’s human rights abuses, a link to the website of the Human Rights Commission (HRC), and particulars of how to go about in reporting Telkom to the HRC.

5. Particulars of the Business Practices Committee (BPC) and how to go about I reporting Telkom to the BPC.

6. A link to a facility for disgruntled Telkom customers to comment on problems that they have had with Telkom.

7. A mailing list to keep members informed on developments in the fight against the Arrogant Empire, Telkom.

8. An invitation to join a class action against Telkom.

9. Using the criminal justice system in acting against Telkom regarding its criminal behaviour, and that of its cronies.

10. A link to the website of the Independent Communications Authority of SA (ICASA) and how to go about I reporting Telkom to this authority.

Telkom’s other tools of trade: Intimidation and extortion

Having mentioned Telkom’s tactics of intimidation and extortion, I will now briefly revisit the particular issues.

1. As regards the crime of intimidation, section 1(1) of Act 72 of 1982 reads as follows:

“Any person who, without lawful reason and with the intent to compel or induce any person to do or to abstain from doing any act or to assume or to abandon a particular standpoint, causes damage to any person or in any manner threatens to cause damage to any person or utters such words that it might reasonably be expected that the natural and probable consequences thereof would be that a person perceiving the utterance fears for the security or the livelihood of any other person, shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R40 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or to both such fine and such imprisonment.”

The facts stated in this letter, clearly depict the fact that Telkom is also in the business of intimidation.

2. Extortion has authoritatively been defined as follows:

“…(W)here a person resorts to illegitimate pressure in the form of threats or intimidation to secure for himself a subjective advantage, which need not necessarily be pecuniary or proprietary in nature, he commits the crime of extortion.”

This letter clearly contains facts from which it is clear that Telkom, and some of its cronies, are accomplished practitioners of the art of criminal extortion.

GANSTER’S PARADISE

I have, over a period of close to 20 years, had numerous telephones in Durban. I have had three telephone lines in my law practice, and after I retired from law practice I had a telephone in my home, at least one phone line in each of my three businesses. I never had any problems with any of the mentioned services and all the billing was always in order.

When we relocated to Gauteng we had problems at the outset. And when we raised queries we were immediately subjected to human rights abuses, as well as inter alia, blackmail, extortion, intimidation, and defamation.

The registration number of vehicles registered in Gauteng ends with the letters, GP. This has been contended to be the abbreviations for Gangster’s Paradise. Our experiences with Telkom in Gauteng, if compared with that in Durban makes us believe that Gangster Paradise is indeed an appropriate label.

My reference to “we” is my youngest daughter, Susan, my various businesses, my daughter, Maria, and I.

I have already dealt with my Telkom woes, and briefly touched on that of Maria in Chartwell. In the paragraph that follows, I will deal with the despicable tactics that Telkom employed in an endeavour to illegally extract money from my youngest daughter, Susan.

Telkom abuses our youngest offspring

1. During 1992 we relocated to Transvaal and temporarily moved in with our youngest daughter, Susan, who had settled here some time before us.

2. In due course she asked me to assist her to get an account from Telkom. Over an extended period I had numerous telephone conversations with Telkomand eventually succeed in getting the desired account.

3. The amount of the account was exorbitant. Her private phone bill amounted to more than that of my home phone, and that of my interior decorating business, spa bath factory, and legal (collection), business put together.

She raised a query and I advised her to continue with nominal payments as a gesture of bona fides. I communicated with Telkom on her behalf in an attempt to get detailed billing from them. I did however not succeed in doing so. During my communications, I pointed out that should they take action against her then they would be obliged to furnish full particulars in term of the rules of court. This also had no effect and a year latter I drafted a letter for her in which she made it clear that she tenders payment of any amount due to Telkom, against the furnishing of particulars of how Telkom’s claim is made up.

Despite her clear statement in writing that she will pay any amount shown to be due by particulars that Telkom may furnish, the particulars were not forthcoming. Instead, she received a summons for an amount of more than R5000.

4. She entered an appearance to defend and I thereafter entered into communications with Telkom’s legal advisers in Pretoria (not its attorneys of record in Randburg). In due course I succeed in impressing upon the particular legal adviser, with whom I had communicated for a period of more than one year, that Telkom will not be able to prove its claim. I then said that I would accept liability for any amount that they can claim against Susan, should they withdraw their action against her. The reason why I did so was the fact that she was employed as personal assistant of the managing director of an information cabling and fibre optics company, and that she would not be able to make herself available to attend trial. I gave Telkom an acknowledgement of debt and a personal suretyship and the action against Susan was subsequently withdrawn.

After the action against Susan was withdrawn, Telkom’s attorneys made numerous attempts to get me to settle the matter by making a payment of R2 000, but I told them to issue summons against me, and that I will pay whatever amount they succeed in proving in a court of law. Despite my acknowledgement of debt, no summons was ever issued against me, and Telkom eventually received nothing. I am of the opinion that Telkom’s legal adviser in Pretoria finally understood what I had told him, and realised that Telkom will never be able to prove its claim in court.

5. More than four years later, the matter became dormant, and eventually died. Nothing further was heard regarding the matter, from Telkom, its attorneys, or its legal adviser.

6. Before moving on to other issues I need to make the following informative remarks:

• During the time that Telkom was dealing with Susan’s query, and despite Telkom’s clear instructions that Susan need make no further payments on the account, they suspended the service on several occasions. This they did despite the fact that Susan did in fact continue make token payments. It was in that time that the father-in- law of my youngest daughter, Elize, was murdered at his service station in Durban and we needed to go to Kokstad to help Elize with the running of their business. While we were there my mother died in Gauteng and as eldest son, and executor in her estate I needed , I needed to return, with my family, to Gauteng. Having dione so I also had to discover that we do not have a telephone service to make the arrengement regarding the funeral. The service was restored a day later, but we certainly did not need the aggravtion that preceded the restoration of the service.
• Although its attorneys gave us more than we received before, we never succeeded in obtaining full particulars concerning the account from Telkom. One of the issues that were obviously a very sensitive issue to them was the fact that the service was suspended by Telkom. They did not deny that fact bu alleged that they did not have the information.
• Had I not been able to assist her, she would have been compelled to engage the services of an attorney. Even at the tariffs that attorneys charged ten years ago, she would have ended up paying at least R20 000 for her legal representation. Given the fact that the claim, as much as it was pure drivel, amounted to R5500, it would not have made any sense to throw R20 000 after R5 500. Telkom would therefore have succeeded in extorting an amount in excess of R5 500 from her.
• During the period of four years we all suffered an immense amount of damages occasioned by the litigation that was pemdinga aginst Susan. The fact that was sued distressed immendsely and it took her years to come over the ordeal.

Telkom continued to bill Susan for months after she had validly terminated the telephone service because the lease of her townhouse had expired and the owner moved in.

Telkom’s game is up, its rule of terror is about to end

I will in due course set the following in motion:

1. I may in due course propose a project regarding the Telkom Axis of Arrogance to Carte Blanche. I say that I “may” because I am considering doing a suitable television production myself.

2. I am doing the necessary to report Telkom’s conduct to the Human Rights Commission.

3. I have already reported Telkom’s deplorable conduct to the Business Practices Committee. I will await Telkom’s response to this letter before sending this letter, and the response through to the Committee.

4. I will report Telkom’s deplorable conduct to the Independent Communications Authority of SA (ICASA) and will do so once I have received Telkom’s response to this letter.

5. I will lay criminal charges against Telkom and will do so after I have received its response to this letter.

6. I will in due course load my website, do_not_pay_telkom, onto the Internet.

7. I will report Telkom’s shenanigans and the punshement that will mete out to this culprit, on newsrooms in googlegroup, and other newsforums on the Internet.

8. I will recruit participants for a class action against Telkom.

It must however be clearly understood that, given the corruption that is reported daily in the media, I do not necessarily expect action to be taken as it should be taken. However, if appropriate action is not taken, then I will take action, inter alia as journalist against those who should have taken action, and in doing so I will search for corruption as a reason for the lack of proper action.

A final thought

I am sure that any competitor in the upcoming battle for the consumer is going to be delighted with the manner in which Telkom shoots itself in the foot with its pigheaded persistence with arrogance, criminal behaviour, and an attitude that the customer is filth, and is always wrong.

In conclusion:

In conclusion I suggest that reason prevails and that you contact me with the view of reaching an amicable settlement in this matter. In that regard I record that I have told Mr. Ben Mkansi during the telephone conversation that we had yesterday, that I need you to inform me of one of the following:

(a) While you are investigating the matter, none of the services in this matter will be suspended.

(b) While you are investigating the matter, the service will be suspended if I do not pay what is claimed.

I made it clear that if (a) will apply, then I will wait to hear from you, but if (b) will apply, then I will approach the High Court for an interdict.

You need to clearly understand the following:

· I receive approximately 50 emails a day.

· We have three businesses that is critically dependant on the telephone connection.

· If you therefore do not wish to investigate this matter then you must take action in a court of law. Should you suspend the service without due legal process, then you will in fact commit a breach of contract and you will be liable for the damages that we sustain.

Therefore, if it is your intention to suspend the service, then I demand that you inform me in advance in order that I may launch proceedings in the High Court.

Yours faithfully,


CH VAN WYK