When Mr X's complaint dropped into my inbox recently, my first reaction was to laugh. Among all the routine cellphone, banking and insurance complaints I get each week, the man's tale of woe was a gem: a partially deaf, old-age home resident has a few drinks and decides to call a phone-sex service using a false name and age, only to hang up after two minutes because he can't hear most of the steamy conversation. But it wasn't having to pay for a service he didn't get to enjoy that bothered him. And well it shouldn't; being hard of hearing is hardly a sound defence for not paying a chatline bill.No, it was the bullying conduct of those running the service that upset him. And it's certainly not a laughing matter.story_article_left1A day or so after the 73-year-old widower made his brief call to Hot Live Girls - he'd spotted the number in a classified newspaper ad - he received a call from the supplier demanding immediate payment of a whopping R1560 for services rendered.When he said he couldn't afford to pay, he was given the option of paying a portion upfront and the balance later.When he couldn't manage that either, he was told the police would be sent to his Johannesburg old-age home to arrest him for fraud.The chatline, owned by Uvongo-based Social Network, provides payment details at the beginning of each recorded call. It offers a R100 "naughty special" payable within 72 hours, by phoning back "at any time for the banking details". The alternative is being charged R1.65 per second, with a minimum 10- minute charge.So although Mr X rang off after just two minutes, he was charged the minimum rate of R990. The balance, R570, is charged for admin and tracing fees.Mr X, meanwhile, said he'd not heard the cost details provided at the time. "I don't hear so well; I didn't hear the per- second business," said Mr X. So he had no choice but to wait for the police to arrive and then explain his position.Of course, the police never came. But three threatening SMSes did. The messages warned him that if he didn't make payment, "a Section 205 may be applied for" and that "national databases like Rica, banks, et cetera may be contacted". The messages threatened that fraud charges would be laid "to appear in civil/criminal court".Terrified, the pensioner negotiated to pay off R100 a month; he's already paid three instalments.The retired electrician said he'd called sex chatlines before where minimal amounts were deducted automatically from airtime on his prepaid cellphone. "I had assumed this one worked the same way," he said.A quick search of the service online throws up repeated allegations of intimidation and abuse of consumers, including underage users.block_quotes_start We deny that these constituted threats and we apologise if this notification or advice was perceived as a threat block_quotes_endI'm not sure the minimum 10- minute charge would be considered fair, just and reasonable pricing under the Consumer Protection Act.Be that as it may, the act certainly bars suppliers from using coercion, undue influence, pressure, duress, harassment, or unfair tactics when demanding or collecting payment from a consumer.Threatening to have them arrested for fraud and reported to their banks is not fair and honest conduct.In fact, the act has a name for such behaviour towards consumers; it's called unconscionable conduct. It means behaviour that is unethical, amoral, unprincipled, indefensible, unforgivable.So I asked owner Martie Lewis what she thought she was playing at. It took her more than two weeks, and a lot of chasing from me, to respond.Initially she denied Mr X had been threatened with arrest, but just with the "possible consequences of misrepresenting personal information which could constitute fraud".But after further questioning she admitted reference had been made "to the possibility" of police involvement and arrest. "We deny that these constituted threats and we apologise if this notification or advice was perceived as a threat," said Lewis."We will look to re-phrase it ..."story_article_right2And what is a Section 205? Turns out this was a "typo error" and was meant to read Section 57 of the Magistrate's Court Act which, according to Lewis, enables a creditor to make an application for judgment against a debtor who has undertaken to pay a debt in instalments.But Mr X was threatened with this long before any payment undertaking was made, so what's the relevance?Lewis wasn't sure, but said she would "revisit the relevance and amend appropriately if required".As for the reference to Rica and the banks, she admitted these were "misplaced" and would be amended.According to Lewis, most callers either misrepresented their personal information or gave insufficient details.She claimed Mr X had used their service twice previously, something he denies.He was, however, never billed, Lewis said, because they'd been "unable previously to trace these calls to him".Considering his "circumstances", Lewis doesn't intend collecting on the initial two. "We experience false names and date of births/identity numbers from callers consistently," said Lewis."The majority do not take the R100 deal ... because they intend not paying at all and believe they can evade payment by supplying false information. Unfortunately, these callers are then traced."What a grubby business.sub_head_start Contact Megan Power sub_head_endE-mail: consumer@sundaytimes.co.zaFollow Megan on Twitter: @Power_ReportTune in to PowerFM 98.7's 'Power Breakfast' (DStv audio channel 889) at 8.50am on Monday to hear more from MeganPlease note: Other than in exceptional circumstances, readers sending me complaints must be willing to be identified and photographed...