Once upon a time, if you bought something and it broke a short while later, you were completely at the mercy of the retailer and whatever “returns” policy they’d come up with all by themselves.
Some undertook to replace the item, no questions asked, within a week or two of purchase, and after that, they’d repair it. Mostly, it would go in for repair, and you’d wait until they were ready to return it.
Well, the people who were tasked with coming up with the Consumer Protection Act thought we deserved better.
They thought we had the right to expect that anything we bought would serve us properly, without breaking, for at least six months.
And if it doesn’t, we have the right not only to return it, but choose our remedy – a refund, replacement or repair.
I realise that must have come as a shock to many retailers, who were not used to the concept of consumers having a choice, but they are required to comply nonetheless.
I expected some of the smaller companies to rebel, to persist with their little “No Returns, No Exchanges” signs as if the CPA didn’t exist, or somehow didn’t apply to them.
And sadly, I wasn’t wrong.
But I didn’t expect so many of the big national companies still to be getting it wrong, more than two years after the CPA became effective.
Yet every week, without fail, I get e-mails from readers who’ve returned something defective to a branch of one of these major companies – from jewellery to furniture and appliances – and had their CPA rights denied in some way.
From shop assistants to shop managers, they are adamant that they are correct in insisting that an item has to be repaired, or that there is no recourse if the customer can’t hand over the original packaging, or that their suppliers don’t warrant certain items.
I then take up the case with head office, they immediately admit that the branch was wrong, issue the refund or whatever, and vow that staff training will take place. But not long after, a similar problem crops up in another branch.
Today’s case is a particularly extreme example.
Sam Robertson of Kenilworth bought a R390 leaf blower from the Constantiaberg Builders Warehouse on May 4. He used it the following Sunday, but after a short while it just stopped blowing.
It was May 24 by the time he returned it – almost three weeks later.
“There is a large sign stuck on the wall highlighting the sections of the CPA that apply to defective goods in their returns division, so I didn’t think I’d have any problem getting my money back for what I had discovered to be a rather flimsy product, and I expected a replacement to break as well,” he said.
It started out well. The employee he approached with his non-blowing leaf blower called over somebody from the garden division, who tested the product and found it was faulty.
“It was agreed that this was a defective product.”
Usually companies send goods away to be assessed, to establish whether a defect or user abuse caused the problem, so at this point, the service was extremely customer-friendly.
But things took a dramatic turn for the worse when Robertson requested a refund.
This was refused, and he was handed a form headed “Customer Repair” and asked to fill it in.
“I referred the employee to the CPA sign on the wall next to her, clearly stating that a refund was an option, but I was told that no one gets a new product or a refund if a product is returned outside of the 14-day period from the date of purchase.”
He asked to speak to a manager, but no manager emerged.
So he did a clever thing. He asked the employee to note in writing, on the form, what the store’s position was.
This is what she wrote: “We are only prepared to repair your unit and are unable to give you your money back. Leaf blower still here.”
Then he left, without the leaf blower, asking that a manager call him.
“This did not happen.”
He had decided to cut his losses and spare his energy when he received a message from Builders Warehouse, Constantiaberg.
No, it wasn’t to ask him to please collect his refund, it was to tell him that the leaf blower would be repaired. And that’s not all – he’d have to pay for the repair: R159.50.
As CPA fails go, this one is right up there. Top of the pile.
“Not only did Builders Warehouse refuse to comply with the CPA after I elected a refund; not only did they force me to have the product repaired; but they expect me to pay for it,” Robertson said in an e-mail to Consumer Alert.
Robertson is an attorney who until recently specialised in the CPA, training many corporates on how to adapt their policies to comply with the new legislation.
“If they take this approach with somebody who knows his rights, what are they doing to people who are unaware of them, and have no idea that they are being treated illegally?”
Well, exactly.
Builders Warehouse is part of the retail giant Massmart.
The company’s written response to my query about this case was brief.
“Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention,” wrote Builders Warehouse marketing director Zandile Manana. “We are sorry for any inconvenience caused and can confirm that we have since resolved the complaint with Mr Robertson.
“Builders Warehouse does consider the CPA a legally binding act and we are currently addressing the issues at the store (in question).
“We are also addressing any inaccuracies in the store notice regarding returns. All staff will be informed of this mishap and the returns policy as stipulated in the CPA will be reinforced with our staff.”
Such “mishaps” simply shouldn’t be happening.
It is inexcusable.
The returns section of the act is not particularly complicated.
If something breaks within six months of purchase, and the consumer has proof of purchase, they are entitled to one of the three Rs: a refund, a replacement or a repair.
They don’t have to return the packaging, just the defective product.
Companies may send the product away to be assessed – 10 days is a reasonable period to keep a customer waiting for this to be done – but the product can’t be unilaterally repaired during this assessment process, if the customer has indicated that they want a refund or a replacement.
There.
If companies can’t get that across to all employees who deal with customers, one has to wonder how they manage to run a company at all.
Enough.