JV
Jan V
Active since Sep 2025
10
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
10 reviews7 months ago
Identity Wonderboom Junction – Premium Prices, Discount Quality
Around 6 to 8 weeks ago, I bought a jacket from Identity Clothing at Wonderboom Junction, Pretoria. The zip has already broken — the zipper piece is gone, and the corner has pulled loose. For a brand that calls itself “premium,” this level of quality is simply shocking. When customers pay for quality, they don’t expect to be let down within a few weeks. It’s unacceptable, and people deserve to know what they’re buying into. My personal opinion: if this is what Identity calls fashion quality, then it’s better to save your money and shop elsewhere.
0 replies
8 months ago
ChatGPT Was Brilliant — Now It’s Just Getting Worse and Worse!
I am a paying customer of ChatGPT, and I’ve had enough. What used to be an absolutely brilliant system has become frustrating, unreliable, and inconsistent. ChatGPT was great when I first upgraded, but now it’s getting worse and worse with every update. ChatGPT constantly forgets instructions, ignores context, and removes or alters important details. I have to talk to it like a child, repeating simple things that used to work perfectly. This is not acceptable for a paid product. Let’s be clear: ChatGPT is owned and operated by OpenAI, under the leadership of Sam Altman (CEO). And while Microsoft — under Bill Gates’ influence and financial backing — provides the massive funding and cloud infrastructure through Azure, it seems the focus has shifted from quality and reliability to profit and control. You both need to fix your system immediately. Paying customers deserve consistency, reliability, and proper support. I did not subscribe to a “beta experiment”; I subscribed to a professional AI service. OpenAI and Microsoft — stop breaking what used to be the best AI tool on the planet. Your users notice. And your users are speaking up. Sort it out, Sam Altman and Microsoft. You’ve got the resources. Start acting like you care about your paying customers.
0 replies
8 months ago
Complaint: VCCB & Experian — ***********, law-breaking, must be shut down
To whom it may concern / public record, My name is Jan Venter, ID 7607095034083, email [email protected] , phone 072 474 8546. I am utterly fed up. Despite sending 30+ emails to VeriCred Credit Bureau (VCCB) and Experian South Africa, they continue to leave my credit profile broken, inaccurate, and damaging my reputation. They act like they’re above the law. They dodge real accountability. Other credit bureaus fixed my data quickly; these clowns can’t manage it. Here are the facts: VCCB has over 239 customer reviews on HelloPeter complaining about poor service, outdated/inaccurate information, and no meaningful resolution. Experian similarly has a long trail of consumer complaints about inaction and empty promises. Both refuse to publish reliable phone contact info for dispute escalation — they hide behind email addresses and give boilerplate responses. This is ridiculous and unacceptable. Their behavior shows gross incompetence, disregard for consumer rights, and structural failure. They should be held accountable, penalised, or even shut down if they can’t comply with basic legal obligations. I demand: They issue me a dispute reference number immediately. They mask all disputed data immediately pending investigation. They correct or remove incorrect entries within 20 business days. They provide me written confirmation of all changes. If they fail, I will flood the Credit Ombud, the National Credit Regulator, and every consumer rights forum with this case. And I won’t stop until they are exposed and properly sanctioned. Everyone — do not trust VCCB or Experian until they prove they are worthy. Regards, Jan Venter ID 7607095034083 [email protected] 072 474 8546 And all they ever say lodge a dispute on line that's bull as we need to fix there mistakes , WHY?
4 replies
8 months ago
Complaint: VCCB & Experian — ***********, law-breaking, must be shut down
To whom it may concern / public record, My name is Jan Venter, ID 7607095034083, email [email protected] , phone 072 474 8546. I am utterly fed up. Despite sending 30+ emails to VeriCred Credit Bureau (VCCB) and Experian South Africa, they continue to leave my credit profile broken, inaccurate, and damaging my reputation. They act like they’re above the law. They dodge real accountability. Other credit bureaus fixed my data quickly; these clowns can’t manage it. Here are the facts: VCCB has over 239 customer reviews on HelloPeter complaining about poor service, outdated/inaccurate information, and no meaningful resolution. Experian similarly has a long trail of consumer complaints about inaction and empty promises. Both refuse to publish reliable phone contact info for dispute escalation — they hide behind email addresses and give boilerplate responses. This is ridiculous and unacceptable. Their behavior shows gross incompetence, disregard for consumer rights, and structural failure. They should be held accountable, penalised, or even shut down if they can’t comply with basic legal obligations. I demand: They issue me a dispute reference number immediately. They mask all disputed data immediately pending investigation. They correct or remove incorrect entries within 20 business days. They provide me written confirmation of all changes. If they fail, I will flood the Credit Ombud, the National Credit Regulator, and every consumer rights forum with this case. And I won’t stop until they are exposed and properly sanctioned. Everyone — do not trust VCCB or Experian until they prove they are worthy. Regards, Jan Venter ID 7607095034083 [email protected] 072 474 8546 And all they ever say lodge a dispute on line that's bull as we need to fix there mistakes , WHY?
3 replies
8 months ago
Complaint: HelloPeter’s Biased Deletion of My Complaint
Name: Jan Venta Contact: 07-247-48546 To whom it may concern at HelloPeter, It is quite remarkable — almost laughable, really — that I must now lodge a complaint about HelloPeter itself on HelloPeter. The irony is as thick as the bias you have displayed. I exercised my legal and constitutional right to raise a consumer complaint against Supersports Bet South Africa and its CEO. This was done in good faith and with the legitimate expectation that HelloPeter — which loudly markets itself as an independent consumer platform — would allow my complaint to stand, subject to your own stated rules. Instead, without a shred of correspondence, without any justification, without even the basic courtesy of a response, my complaint was unceremoniously deleted. No explanation. No process. Just gone. One has to ask: Why? Is HelloPeter now an extension of Supersports Bet’s PR department? Are you friends with their CEO? Is this what “independence” looks like — swiftly deleting consumer complaints that don’t suit your preferred corporate relationships? Because from where I sit, it looks like blatant bias. It looks like you have abandoned neutrality and taken sides. And in doing so, you have shredded the credibility of your platform. Consumers come to HelloPeter because it claims to give an equal voice, to provide a transparent channel to hold companies accountable. Yet in my case, you’ve done the exact opposite: silenced the consumer and shielded the corporate. So I will ask this publicly, right here: Is this regular HelloPeter practice? Do you routinely delete complaints against certain companies? Or is this a special courtesy reserved only for Supersports Bet and its CEO? Make no mistake: what you have done is not only ********* — it borders on a misrepresentation of your very role as a so-called “independent” complaints platform. By deleting consumer complaints without explanation, you are complicit in protecting corporate misconduct. I will ensure that this complaint is seen, read, and shared widely so that consumers understand the truth: HelloPeter is not the impartial watchdog it pretends to be. Yours, Jan Venter
5 replies
8 months ago
Client Service Acknowledgment
Dear Massmart and Builders Warehouse Leadership, Not long ago, I expressed serious concerns about the lack of transparency and accessibility in reaching your leadership. My review was harsh, reflecting the frustration of a client who felt shut out from accountability in a billion-rand company. However, I now feel it is just as important to set the record straight when a company does the right thing. To my surprise, Massmart and Builders Warehouse have shown that client service truly matters to you — not only in words, but in action. The way my matter was handled by the Regional Manager, the Vice President, and the Assistant Store Manager of your Gezina branch was nothing short of exemplary. They approached the issue with professionalism, ethics, and genuine respect for the client’s rights. They did not dismiss the problem, nor did they hide behind bureaucracy — instead, they dealt with it head-on, admitted where mistakes may have occurred, and resolved it in a way that restored my confidence. This experience has made it clear to me that Massmart and Builders Warehouse do take service seriously and that clients are not just numbers, but people whose concerns are heard and valued. I am grateful for the way your leadership stepped in and for the care shown throughout the process. I now feel confident in recommending Builders Warehouse and Massmart to others, knowing that if issues arise, they will be addressed with integrity and fairness. Well done to the Gezina team and your executive management for ensuring that clients matter. Thank you again for respecting clients and upholding accountability. Yours sincerely, Jan Venter
0 replies
8 months ago
Client Service Acknowledgment
Dear Massmart and Builders Warehouse Leadership, Not long ago, I expressed serious concerns about the lack of transparency and accessibility in reaching your leadership. My review was harsh, reflecting the frustration of a client who felt shut out from accountability in a billion-rand company. However, I now feel it is just as important to set the record straight when a company does the right thing. To my surprise, Massmart and Builders Warehouse have shown that client service truly matters to you — not only in words, but in action. The way my matter was handled by the Regional Manager, the Vice President, and the Assistant Store Manager of your Gezina branch was nothing short of exemplary. They approached the issue with professionalism, ethics, and genuine respect for the client’s rights. They did not dismiss the problem, nor did they hide behind bureaucracy — instead, they dealt with it head-on, admitted where mistakes may have occurred, and resolved it in a way that restored my confidence. This experience has made it clear to me that Massmart and Builders Warehouse do take service seriously and that clients are not just numbers, but people whose concerns are heard and valued. I am grateful for the way your leadership stepped in and for the care shown throughout the process. I now feel confident in recommending Builders Warehouse and Massmart to others, knowing that if issues arise, they will be addressed with integrity and fairness. Well done to the Gezina team and your executive management for ensuring that clients matter. Thank you again for respecting clients and upholding accountability. Yours sincerely, Jan Venter
1 reply
8 months ago
********* Credit Bearau
To: Credit Bureau Compliance / Dispute Resolution Bureau: Experian / TransUnion / XDS / VCCB Date: 25 September 2025 I, Jan Hendrik Steph**** Venter (ID 760709 5034 083), domiciled in Pretoria, South Africa, contact 072 474 8546, hereby lodge a formal dispute and final demand for the immediate removal/correction of all negative entries on my credit profile that relate to prescribed debt and/or incorrect information. Why your data is ******** Prescription (3 years): All listed debts are older than three years with no acknowledgment of liability by me and no legal summons/service on me during that time. Such debts are extinct by prescription in terms of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969, which sets three years for “any other debt” (s 11(d)) and runs from when the debt is due (s 12). NCA prohibits listing/collecting prescribed debt: The National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (NCA) prohibits reporting or collecting prescribed debt. You must maintain accurate records and remove data you cannot prove with credible evidence within the prescribed timeframes (see s 72 and the Regulations). 20 business days to resolve disputes: Credit bureaus must investigate and resolve a consumer dispute within 20 business days, provide a dispute reference, mask the information during investigation, and remove/correct it if there’s no credible evidence from the data furnisher. POPIA – inaccurate personal information: Keeping and publishing inaccurate or outdated personal information violates POPIA s 24. I hereby request correction/deletion of such information. My demands (non-negotiable) Immediately mask the disputed entries pending outcome. Provide me with the dispute reference number today. Within 20 business days, either: Provide credible documentary evidence proving that each listed debt is not prescribed (e.g., date-stamped summons/acknowledgment interrupting prescription), or Delete/correct the entries and confirm in writing, and notify all other bureaus and recipients of the erroneous data as the Regulations require. If you refuse or fail to comply, treat this as a PAJA s 5 request for written reasons for your administrative action within 90 days and expect escalation without further notice. Escalation if you don’t fix this Failing compliance, I will file formal complaints with: National Credit Regulator (NCR) – [email protected]; Tel 0860 627 627; for NCA contraventions. Credit Ombud (NFOSA) – [email protected]; Tel 0861 662 837; for unresolved bureau disputes. Information Regulator – [email protected] for POPIA s 24 contraventions. Further, I reserve my right under NCA s 72(1)(d) to seek compensation for the cost of correction and any damages caused by your ******** reporting. Identification & authority Attached: Copy of my RSA ID (front). You are authorised to contact the data furnishers solely for purposes of this dispute. Signed: J.H.S. Venter Pretoria, South Africa Cell: 072 474 8546 Email: [email protected]
3 replies
8 months ago
********* Credit Burau
To: Credit Bureau Compliance / Dispute Resolution Bureau: Experian / TransUnion / XDS / VCCB Date: 25 September 2025 I, Jan Hendrik Steph**** Venter (ID 760709 5034 083), domiciled in Pretoria, South Africa, contact 072 474 8546, hereby lodge a formal dispute and final demand for the immediate removal/correction of all negative entries on my credit profile that relate to prescribed debt and/or incorrect information. Why your data is ******** Prescription (3 years): All listed debts are older than three years with no acknowledgment of liability by me and no legal summons/service on me during that time. Such debts are extinct by prescription in terms of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969, which sets three years for “any other debt” (s 11(d)) and runs from when the debt is due (s 12). NCA prohibits listing/collecting prescribed debt: The National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (NCA) prohibits reporting or collecting prescribed debt. You must maintain accurate records and remove data you cannot prove with credible evidence within the prescribed timeframes (see s 72 and the Regulations). 20 business days to resolve disputes: Credit bureaus must investigate and resolve a consumer dispute within 20 business days, provide a dispute reference, mask the information during investigation, and remove/correct it if there’s no credible evidence from the data furnisher. POPIA – inaccurate personal information: Keeping and publishing inaccurate or outdated personal information violates POPIA s 24. I hereby request correction/deletion of such information. My demands (non-negotiable) Immediately mask the disputed entries pending outcome. Provide me with the dispute reference number today. Within 20 business days, either: Provide credible documentary evidence proving that each listed debt is not prescribed (e.g., date-stamped summons/acknowledgment interrupting prescription), or Delete/correct the entries and confirm in writing, and notify all other bureaus and recipients of the erroneous data as the Regulations require. If you refuse or fail to comply, treat this as a PAJA s 5 request for written reasons for your administrative action within 90 days and expect escalation without further notice. Escalation if you don’t fix this Failing compliance, I will file formal complaints with: National Credit Regulator (NCR) – [email protected]; Tel 0860 627 627; for NCA contraventions. Credit Ombud (NFOSA) – [email protected]; Tel 0861 662 837; for unresolved bureau disputes. Information Regulator – [email protected] for POPIA s 24 contraventions. Further, I reserve my right under NCA s 72(1)(d) to seek compensation for the cost of correction and any damages caused by your ******** reporting. Identification & authority Attached: Copy of my RSA ID (front). You are authorised to contact the data furnishers solely for purposes of this dispute. Signed: J.H.S. Venter Pretoria, South Africa Cell: 072 474 8546 Email: [email protected] Also there website does not work and they have no listed email address , ****** will report them to NCR and Ombudsman
0 replies
8 months ago
Selective duty's and only want media exposure
Dear Mr Kriel and AfriForum Leadership, I write again with urgency, not merely as a disgruntled former member or donor, but as a citizen deeply disappointed in what appears to be glaring inconsistency between AfriForum’s stated mission and your actions in my case. I set out the facts, legal standards, contradictions, and my demands below. I expect a substantial response within 14 business days; anything less will be taken as further evidence that your institution is more about image and selective protection than justice. ________________________________________ 1. Facts (Undisputed in my view) In 2022, I contacted Infinite Debt Solutions to enquire about debt review. I never signed any debt review agreement, never finalised any process, and there was no court order placing me under debt review. Despite this, Infinite Debt Solutions flagged me as being under debt review with all major credit bureaus. I only discovered it when checking my credit record myself. I have since settled every financial obligation; I have no outstanding debt. Infinite Debt Solutions is now demanding R2,000 to remove this false listing. I have lodged complaints with the National Credit Regulator (NCR) and emailed the Minister of Trade and Industry; neither has rep****. SAFPS (South African ***** Prevention Services) has flagged me as a *****ster, allegedly at the behest of Bidvest Bank and ABSA. I have never had a Bidvest Bank account, nor been convicted or charged with ***** or any ******** offence. My record is clean. I have attempted resolution directly with SAFPS; they refuse to remove the false listing. According to them, the ***** label stays for ten years. Because of these flags, I have suffered severe harm: inability to open or access banking accounts or credit, reputational harm, the stigma of false ***** or financial dereliction, financial damages in “hundreds of thousands” of rand. I approached AfriForum seeking your assistance, as a financial member, believing your organisation stands for justice and civil rights. Your response: a refusal, on the basis that my matter is “individual,” “outside your legal mandate,” “you do not offer personal legal services,” and you do not have capacity. (Reply dated [as in your letter].) ________________________________________ 2. Legal Norms & Constitutional / Statutory Rights At Play Your refusal implicates or potentially violates the following rights and legal principles: Right to dignity (Section 10, Constitution) — being falsely labelled a *****ster or debt-defaulter is defamatory and injures dignity. Presumption of innocence / fair administrative action — whoever is making these listings (credit bureaus, SAFPS, or debt review agents) must have lawful justification. False administrative action without due process is ******* under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). Protection of personal information under POPIA — false, inaccurate or outdated information stored or disseminated about me must be corrected or removed. Defamation law (common law + constitutional overlay) — wrongful statements harming reputation are actionable. Constitutional obligations for non-state actors when their actions or omissions affect constitutional rights, especially when state or quasi-state bodies are involved in listing or credit information. ________________________________________ 3. What AfriForum Claims vs. What AfriForum Does Your refusal rests on several assertions: Your claim What it implies Why it is inconsistent or legally weak “We are not a legal firm and cannot take instructions for individual cases.” You refuse to assist persons even when clear legal wrongs are involved. Many NGOs or civil society groups limit mandate, but when constitutional rights are involved (public interest, false listing), you’ve shown capacity and willingness in other cases. Public interest litigation is part of AfriForum’s work. “Adv. Nel’s unit only handles ******** matters / private prosecutions.” You draw a line between ******** cases vs civil / administrative wrongs. That does not address civil rights abuses or defamation / false credit listing, which are legal wrongs that can have constitutional implications. Also, civil litigation is within AfriForum’s established legal interventions (see land rights, expropriation, local government service delivery) when public interest is implicated. “Resources are limited; cannot assist all members.” You select who to help. That may be factual, but you then need transparent, consistent criteria. If those criteria exclude cases like mine, they must still be lawful, non-discriminatory, and not arbitrary. Also, refusal to assist cannot be used to deny all meaningful access to justice. The law demands administrative fairness. ________________________________________ 4. Case Law & Precedents Showing AfriForum Acts Selectively These cases show that AfriForum does take up matters that align with its agenda or publicity, even when legal complexity or cost is high. Examples: AfriForum has launched legal challenges to the Expropriation Act, arguing it jeopardises property rights. It has engaged in public interest litigation to force municipalities to deliver services (water, electricity) and to challenge ******** levies etc. It has acted in equality & hate speech cases (e.g. “Dubul’ ibhunu / Kill the Boer”, and in Nelson Mandela Foundation / flag display cases) when these matters attract public attention or align with its core identity agenda. Thus, your argument that “case must align with public agenda / visibility / related to Afrikaner identity / property rights, etc.” is supported by what you do pick, not what you refuse. ________________________________________ 5. Why My Case Is Public Interest / Deserves AfriForum’s Assistance My case is not a trivial private dispute; it strikes at multiple systemic issues: It involves *****ulent and unconstitutional practices by entities entrusted with credit and ***** prevention — which affects many people, not only me, perhaps millions, who suffer from misreporting or false listings. The damage is fundamental: access to finance, credit, basic participation in economic life. This is no small matter; it is a constitutional, civil right. It is precisely the sort of matter where public interest litigation or civil rights advocacy should function, especially for organisations like yours that claim to protect rights, minority or otherwise. ________________________________________ 6. My Legal Arguments For Why You Should Assist Standing and locus: As a member and donor, you have a reasonable expectation that your membership means support when constitutional rights are infringed. Public interest: The matter is one of public interest because it touches on consumer rights, credit bureau law (National Credit Act), false or inaccurate listing practices, and ***** prevention entities. Precedent: Courts have found that mislistings (*****, credit, defamation) give rise to actionable civil wrongs. Risk to reputation: Staying silent or refusing to assist in clearly wrongful actions that match your mission undermines your credibility and exposes you to legitimate criticism. ________________________________________ 7. What I Demand From AfriForum A personal, written review by you (CEO) of my case, including all documentation I submit (credit bureau entries, correspondence with Infinite Debt Solutions, SAFPS, etc.). A public acknowledgement (if necessary) that these types of cases (false debt review listings and false ***** listings) are civil rights issues affecting many, and fall within the ambit of what AfriForum should respond to, especially for financial supporters. Assistance in compelling Infinite Debt Solutions and SAFPS to remove the false listings, including legal or administrative intervention if required. Compensation for the harm done so far — at least ensuring I am made whole: restoration of access to banking, credit, removal of false listings, and apology or retraction if needed. Transparent criteria: Provide me (and members) with your criteria for taking cases (legal, resource, public interest etc.), so we see how cases are chosen. If you refuse or do not respond meaningfully within 14 business days, I will assume that your refusal is part of a broader policy of selective justice and will proceed to: Make the full correspondence public via media and expose.org.za Approach legal clinics and possibly institute legal claim(s) for misrepresentation / breach of duty (if applicable) Seek judicial review / complaint with relevant regulatory authorities (e.g. Legal Practice Council, rights commissions) ________________________________________ 8. Legal Risks to AfriForum If You Refuse A failure to act in cases where constitutional and legal wrongs are plainly evident risks reputational damage; your stated vision and mission are subject to scrutiny under constitutional values (equality, dignity, fairness). If you selectively assist cases that align with your political or identity agenda but refuse cases affecting less-publicised or less “popular” individuals, you may be exposed to accusations of ************** or breach of trust from members. There may also be legal exposure if any internal promises, membership agreements, or representations were made that you would support civil rights / legal justice — one could allege misrepresentation. ________________________________________ 9. Conclusion I ask you to reconsider, in view of what I have set out above. I am not seeking special favours but equal application of justice as you promote. If your institution claims to defend constitutional rights, then those rights must be defended even when the case is less visible, less convenient, or less aligned with fundraising or media profile. I await your substantive response in 14 business days. Yours faithfully, Jan Hendrik Steph**** Venter
1 reply
Review Distribution
5 Star
2 (20%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
0 (0%)
1 Star
8 (80%)