BY SAM ALFAN.
An online lender has been slapped with a fine of half-a-million shillings for persistent calls to a businesswoman over a loan borrowed by another person.
Asapkash, which is owned by Zerox Technology limited was ordered to pay Sandra Ongaki Sh500,000 as a compensation for harassing her with persistent calls on a loan she was not a party.
The Data commissioner found the lender liable for infringement of Ongaki’s rights and non-compliance of its obligation under the Act.
“The Zerox Technology limited is hereby ordered to pay Sandra Ongaki Sh.500,000 for the infringement of his right to be informed under Section 26 (a) of the Act and the right to object under Section 26 of the Act,” ruled Data commissioner.
The watchdog ruled that Asapkash was in a continuous violation of several obligations under the Act.
“Asapkash is therefore directed to adhere to the Enforcement Notice Ref No. ODPC/CONF/1/7/2 VOL 1 (63), particularly measures 4,5,6 and 7 within thirty (30) days of receipt of this determination,” ruled the Data commissioner.
The move will tame online apps lending money to individuals but end up harassing other people who are not party to the loan or aware of the arrangement.
The apps always seek permission to access the borrowers call list as one the conditions to be allowed to borrow loan.
Ongaki filed the complaint against the lender arguing that she was being constantly contacted by ts agents while demanding that she contact a relative responsible for a defaulted mobile loan.
She stated that she was not involved in the loan and she indicated to Zerox Technology ltd that she was not accountable for addressing such matters.
To prove the claims, Ongaki provided screenshots of several numbers that she alleged belonged to agents of the Asapkash.
She alleged that as at the date of the complaint, she was still receiving multiple calls and despite blocking the numbers, they still contacted her using different numbers.
Asapkash replied stating that after a loan application, their clients are required to provide at least two emergency contacts, particularly their names and phone numbers for purposes of contacting them when they are unable to reach the loanee to remind them to repay their defaulted loan.
They stated that they send OTPs to the provided emergency contacts via SMSs where they can agree or reject to be the client’s emergency contact. In case they agree, they disburse the loan to the clients and if they reject or ignore the OTP, they reject the client’s request for a loan. The OTPs are valid for a maximum of two hours and they proceed to cancel the loan request by the client and they are notified of the reasons for rejection.
Asapkash indicated that the Complainant was listed as an emergency contact and her phone number was provided by the loanee. The loanee defaulted her loan prompting them to contact the Complainant who was listed as her emergency contact.
The company alleged that they tried to contact the Complainant to settle the complaint with her to no avail.
That after this complaint, they decided to stop contacting all emergency contacts provided by their clients and proceeded to encrypt their phone numbers as a mitigation measure to ensure such cases do not occur again
