It has been over two months since Gofwan Wakbul Thomas, a resident of Jos, Plateau State, paid N148,000 through his First Bank account to renew his elderly parents’ DSTV subscription.

But despite multiple complaints and confirmed proof of payment, the funds remain uncredited to their decoder. The consequence, of course, is that his elderly parents have lived without service.

What began as a routine transaction on December 18, via the MyDStv app has spiralled into an exhausting dispute, marked by conflicting responses, broken promises and weeks of silence.

“I just wanted to make sure my parents could keep watching their usual programmes without interruption,” Thomas said. “Now, it’s turned into a full-blown case.”

READ ALSO: Lagos Customer’s N53,000 Missing Between GTB, Wema, Baxi for 5 Months

PAYMENT MADE, SERVICE DENIED

Thomas’s payment was processed through Interswitch, with First Bank immediately confirming the debit on the said day. But on DSTV’s end, the account showed no active subscription.

He had assumed it was a minor technical glitch at first and he contacted DSTV’s live chat support. He was given a one-day complimentary subscription and assured that the case had been escalated.

The temporary access expired and the permanent fix never came.

On December 20, Thomas formally escalated the issue by email, attaching the payment receipt. DSTV responded the next day, confirming receipt and forwarding the case to its reconciliation team.

Then, silence.

When there was no resolution by January 1, Thomas involved the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) by copying the agency in his correspondence with DSTV.

DSTV’s reply, signed by an agent dismissed the issue. The response was that the transaction could not be traced. Thomas was advised to request a reversal from his bank.

However, First Bank refuted that the very next day, confirming the payment was successful and providing an official session ID for DSTV to trace the funds.

DSTV acknowledged receiving that confirmation on January 2 and promised to process the case. But nothing changed.

WAITING GAME

Weeks passed. Thomas sent follow-up emails, each time copying the FCCPC. On January 23, DSTV finally conceded through another agent named Esther Dossa.

The service provider said that the payment had indeed been received and that the resolution would be processed promptly. Still, by early March, the account remains inactive.

“It feels like they’re just waiting it out,” Thomas said.

“Maybe hoping I’ll get tired and walk away.”

LIMITED PROTECTIONS

Section 130 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) of 2018 mandates service providers are required to deliver paid services without undue delay and to address complaints promptly.

But enforcement remains inconsistent. Thomas got the FCCPC involved both publicly and formally very early in the back-and-forth. But the involvement has yet to produce any tangible result.

The commission encourages companies to resolve disputes internally, but protracted cases like this one cast doubts about the effectiveness of consumer protection in practice.

READ ALSO: 18 Months After, Police Still Refusing to Pay N50m Compensation to Widow of Journalist They Murdered

MORE THAN MONEY

FIJ emailed DSTV for a resolution on Monday. About 24 hours later, the team responded with a message requesting some extra details of the transaction.

But when FIJ provided the details to the team on Wednesday, no response was provided. Neither FIJ nor Thomas got any responses from DSTV afterwards.

With the decoder still inactive and DSTV’s responses now reduced to automated acknowledgements, Thomas says he is considering taking legal action. He hopes public exposure might finally bring the matter to a close.