WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2008-04-28 Time: 00:00:00 Posted By: Jan
Cellphones are a brilliant invention in many ways, and many of us can’t imagine our lives without them. But they are also prone to causing us a lot of misery, aggravation and financial hardship while they’re making our lives more convenient.
Consider this for starters: the first generation of teenagers which wholeheartedly embraced the SMS as their prime form of communication, letting their thumbs do the talking day and night, now have driver’s licences.
To drive behind or alongside a driver who is holding the wheel with one hand and punching out an SMS with the other is a truly scary experience. And of course, the Bobbing Heads – tell-tale sign of an SMSer: eyes darting repeatedly from road to phone – have no idea that they’re driving erratically.
Let’s hope for all our sakes that the Bobbing Heads have comprehensive insurance.
Moving on – I had a massive response to my recent column about the fact that many people have no idea that their 24-month cellphone contracts don’t actually end or expire after 24 months automatically.
Ignorance about this requirement is pretty widespread, it seems.
And it’s not surprising. What is seldom revealed verbally is that the contract will continue on a month-to-month basis after that initial 24-month period, unless the contract holder provides at least one month’s WRITTEN notice of cancellation.
So you can “sign up” for a two-year contract over the phone, the quick, easy way, but you can’t cancel the contract in the same easy way. First you must read the terms and conditions of your cellphone contract at the time of signing, and spot the one about the written cancellation in the middle of two dozen points in excruciatingly tiny print. Then, when your contract is nearing an end, almost two years later, you must remember this requirement, and then commit your intention to cancel to writing and send it to the company at least a month before the end of the contract term.
That’s expecting rather a lot, if you ask me.
Do we get an SMS from our network or service provider at the end of month 22, reminding us that if we don’t have any intention of committing ourselves to another 24 months of debit orders, we must cancel in writing? Of course not. What we get is a phone call urging us to “upgrade”. Seldom, if ever, an unsolicited word about written cancellation.
This offends my sense of fair play horribly and it appears I’m not alone.
The cellphone industry has made millions out of people not knowing about the “30 days written cancellation” thing.
They call the standard 24-month contract period the “initial period”. And their service agreements state that it will continue “indefinitely” if that written notice is not received.
If it’s not received a month before those 24 months are up, the contract holder is made to pay for another month.
In some cases the person makes no contact with the service provider or network, believing the contract to have “expired”, only to discover months later that they are still paying a monthly subscription. For nothing.
Often it’s a much higher sub than they had paid during the “initial” period, because the network or service provider is no longer obliged to stick to the “discounted” tariff applicable to the “initial” period.
If you do decide to stick with your network or SP and you “upgrade” – in other words you commit to another two years’ of payment, your loyalty is rewarded with an “admin fee” of around R150.
If you sign up as a new customer, you don’t pay this admin fee, and you usually have the benefit of much juicier offers, too.
Brett Dragsund spotted an attractive cellphone contract offer in a Game print advert two weeks ago. An HTCS 310 handset plus Game shopping vouchers to the value of R2 800 with a two-year Vodacom contract.
He was due for an “upgrade” on his existing cellphone contract, but when he went to sign up at Game in Pinetown, he was told that the offer only applied to new contracts.
“Upgrading” clients were only eligible for R2 500 in vouchers, he discovered.
He protested that this was not stated in the advert and thus the advert was misleading.
According to Game, the advert did state that the offer applied to new contracts only.
How did they convey this? With the following words: “Contract is subject to an initial 24 months”.
Believe it or not, these eight words were intended to alert consumers to the fact that the offer only applied to those applying for a new contract.
I am happy to report that on receipt of my query about this matter, Rajen Chinniah, Massdiscounters’ cellular group buyer, said Game would give Brett the full R2 800 in vouchers.
And from now onwards their adverts will say in bold “New contracts only”. Fantastic. It’s just possible that people will understand those three words a whole lot better.
(This “standard practice” of contracts which don’t actually expire on the expiry date, also applies to gym and home security contracts.)
The Consumer Protection Bill – due to be passed into law by the end of the year – will change the way these industries operate in this respect, to a large extent.
If the final draft of the Bill remains as is, these companies will be compelled to contact the consumer not more than 80 days and not less than 40 days BEFORE the expiry date of the contract, notify them IN WRITING of the impending expiry date, and spell out their options, should they wish to renew or cancel.
That way no-one can get “cut off without notice” – or unwittingly end up paying for a service they no longer need or want.
The trouble with diesel
I feel for those of you who’ve bought diesel cars on the basis that a tank of diesel takes you a lot further than a tank of petrol.
It was always a complicated financial decision, given that the lower fuel bill of diesel cars was offset by the higher vehicle purchase price, and shorter service intervals.
In other words, you have to put a lot of kilometres on the clock to make up that extra spend.
But now that the price of diesel is skyrocketing even more than the price of petrol, diesel vehicles are arguably no longer the cheaper option, all things considered.
So what’s behind the soaring price of diesel?
A host of factors, one of them being the booming economies of China and India, which are creating an unprecedented demand for diesel.
Fear of a shortage is driving up the price of diesel on the stock markets, says Peter Morgan of the Fuel Retailers Association.
If it wasn’t for the fact that the retail price of diesel is not regulated by government – unlike that of petrol – diesel would be costing more at the pumps than it currently is.
Many service station owners have opted to make much lower profit margins on diesel, by charging what Morgan calls “ridiculously low prices”.
His association is urging service station owners to increase their prices in order not to put themselves out of business.
Diesel vehicle owners are no doubt hoping that the advice falls on deaf ears.
So now more than ever, if you own a diesel vehicle, it pays to shop around for the best price in your area.
In a snap survey last week, I found a 50c price variance in low sulphur diesel – the 500 parts per million one.
When things fall apart, who’s to blame
As far as I’m aware, the authorities have not relaxed the criteria for assessing whether or not our vehicles are roadworthy.
Get caught with smooth tyres or a broken taillight and you face a hefty fine.
But there’s apparently nothing compelling the authorities to provide us with what motoring journalist Gavin Foster cleverly calls “carworthy roads”. I’m referring, of course, to potholes.
According to the South African Roads Federation, the poor condition of our roads is a R20-billion problem for motorists – that’s the estimated cost of damage caused to cars which slam into them, plus damage resulting in accidents caused by cars swerving to avoid them.
And who pays the repair costs? We motorists, of course. Unless you can prove that the municipality in question was negligent in not getting the pothole repaired in time.
The Automobile Association has seen a two-fold business opportunity in this pothole problem. It issued a press release last month, warning that motorists may be driving around blissfully unaware of the fact that dodgy road surfaces have rendered their cars unroadworthy, as a result of damaged tyres, shocks, suspension, wheel bearings, coil springs and more.
The damage often only comes to light during routine services, or – more worryingly, after an accident, says the AA’s corporate affairs manager, Gary Ronald.
“The danger is that motor insurance policies exclude cover if the insured vehicle is found to be unroadworthy,” he says.
The AA recommends that motorists have their cars’ roadworthiness tested at an AA Test and Drive centre.
And if you do get a puncture after slamming into a pothole, or a manhole that’s had its cover stolen – been there, done both! – the repair cost is usually less than your insurance excess amount.
So the AA has come up with a “stand-alone” Insurance Tyre policy, providing cover for the cost of repair or replacement of a tyre, including valves and balancing, caused by accidental damage.
The cost? About R90 a month. Flat tyres caused by normal wear and tear aren’t covered.