The Consumer Protection Act (CPA) might have outlawed blanket “no refund” policies, but many suppliers still seem to view themselves as somehow exempt. Or they’re failing to communicate that message to their staff.
Which is why, six years after the act came into effect, I’m still receiving complaints weekly about stores not giving refunds or replacements that are due.
Some stores won’t “entertain” refunds for defective goods while many insist on a repair. That, simply, is a violation of the CPA. To be clear: if you’ve bought something and it breaks within six months - not due to negligence or your own fault - you have the right to a refund, replacement or repair.
The CPA gives consumers an automatic six-month warranty of quality. It does not, however, give you an automatic right of return. So, for instance, if you bought something in a payday shopping spree and suffered buyer’s remorse afterwards (who hasn’t?) you can’t return to the store and insist they give you your money back.
They might, but it’s entirely their call. They might insist on a store credit, which you could use as you wish.
It might be a case of the message not filtering down to staff. A few months ago, I tried to return a faulty Tevo product to Makro and was told Tevo operates differently and doesn’t “do” refunds.
Read also: Cancelling a contract can be expensive
I had to fight for that refund, insisting it was a violation of the CPA. Reluctantly, they gave the customer what she wanted.
When I spoke to a Massmart spokesperson after that, she was horrified: the company clearly states its CPA-compliant returns policies at all returns counters and staff are sent for refresher training regularly. Slip-ups do happen though, she said, and new staff are employed who may not be up to scratch on their policies.
Cellphone shops, though, often still appear to be operate outside the CPA, with staff believing devices are somehow exempt from refunds and returns. But whether you’ve bought a phone with cash or taken one out on contract, if it becomes faulty within the first six months, you have a right to insist on getting a brand-new phone or refund, not suffer through a repair or take one of their “reconditioned” numbers.
After that, you’re at the mercy of the warranty or whatever your insurance says.
However, you can’t walk into a store and insist on a refund. After the five-day cool-off period, they are entitled to send the phone for an assessment (which shouldn’t take longer than 10 days) to determine the problem.
Gavin Goschen wrote to me about an issue with Telkom Mobile. In August last year, he upgraded his daughter’s phone to a new iPhone 6s. By December, its vibrate function had stopped working. Telkom sent it for an assessment and repair.
“On January 20, we fetched the phone and the vibrate function was working. About three days later the vibrate function stopped working again, so I took it back to Telkom.
“I insisted that I now wanted a new phone as they had tried to repair it before and I was not prepared for my daughter to have no phone again for another 10 days.
“The lady at the branch told me Telkom’s policy is that the phone has to be sent in three times first before they will look at replacing the phone.
“I argued that Telkom was not above the CPA and cannot make its own policy that is not in terms of the CPA. She then asked one of the other staff and they concurred that the phone had to go back three times before they would replace it.
“I then stormed out and, as it currently stands, my daughter has a phone that does not function as it is supposed to.
“What was also interesting was that when we went to the Apple store, they said Apple does not fix phones in SA, they just replace them, but as we had the contract with Telkom, we needed to deal with Telkom.”
The Telkom staff are misinformed, Jacqui O’Sullivan told me. “Telkom is guided by the Consumer Protection Act when it comes to device return and repairs and we apologise to our customer for any misrepresentation of our policy on this matter.
“It is not Telkom’s policy to repair a device three times prior to the replacement. Instead, each incident is assessed on its merit and is guided by the device warranty and a technical assessment of the fault.
“It is Telkom’s policy to repair or replace devices following a technical assessment of the fault for which the device has been returned. We are guided by a seven-day out-of-box return policy, the device warranty and the six-month return of goods period provisioned for in the CPA.
“However, it is a business imperative for Telkom to establish the cause of any reported technical glitch prior to engaging the customer.
“In this particular case, our customer had initially allowed for the repair of the device which was provided for under the device warranty. Following the return of the repaired device, the customer had returned the device stating that the fault had recurred.
“However, due to a three-month workmanship guarantee on the previous repair, Telkom is obligated to establish whether this was a repeat fault or a technical fault. Our agent would have advised our customer that the device would need to be assessed to establish the cause of the fault - this would be the departure point for us to engage our customer on the way forward.
“While we are fully compliant with the CPA, as a business, we must establish the exact cause of the fault with device technicians and manufacturers prior to the replacement of a device. To this end, incidents of intentional neglect are not grounds for the replacement of a device. In this particular case, the fault has only been reported but a technical assessment has not yet taken place to establish the exact cause of the fault.
“We are engaging our customer to allow us to assess the fault reported and thereafter we will agree with our customer on whether or not a replacement of the device will be appropriate.”
Fair enough: Goschen had opted for a repair, which comes with a three-month guarantee. Had he told Telkom at the outset that he didn’t want a repair and would rather have a new phone or a refund, he should have received different treatment.
However, staff should be better educated in the CPA and not give customers their interpretation of the law. Because ultimately - your rights are being violated.