It’s been a while since I’ve written about group discount buying, a market dominated by Groupon. That’s not to say I don’t get complaints. I do, regularly, and I pass them on to the company for resolution.
But two recent cases stand out as particularly problematic, in terms of consumer prejudice.
The first involves John Thackray of Vredehoek, Cape Town, who responded to a Groupon voucher offer of a full car service at Budget Auto Clinic, for R846. Claimed value: R1800.
When his car – a Hyundai Getz – went in to be serviced at Budget Auto Clinic’s Buitengracht branch, in early August, Thackray was told that the cambelt needed replacing, at an extra cost of R1600. He agreed to this, and also asked that the car’s oil levels be checked.
But that evening the car smelt of oil.
So he complained to both Budget Auto and Groupon. Meanwhile, he booked his car for an inspection with a Hyundai dealership.
The dealership said that the oil had been overfilled and that the clutch needed replacing.
THE BIG SHOCK
Most shockingly, the dealership said the cambelt needed to be replaced, too. The one in the car was the original, manufacturer-fitted part and had never been replaced, he was told.
Naturally, he shared this information with both Groupon and Budget Auto Clinic.
“I received a one-line e-mail from Budget Auto Clinic to say that I must take my car back to them. Groupon said they were sorry to hear of my bad experience, but offered no form of refund,” he said.
So Thackray paid twice for a cambelt replacement. The Hyundai dealership gave him the old cambelt, which the Consumer Protection Act requires them to do, and which was not done by Budget Auto Clinic.
(CPA, Section 67: a supplier must retain any parts removed during repair or maintenance work, and return them to the customer in a “reasonably clean” container unless the customer says he or she does not want them.)
SHIFTING THE BLAME
Confronted about this, Budget Auto Clinic told Thackray they had replaced his cambelt and suggested that the dealership was not telling the truth.
Thackray continued to demand a refund from Budget Auto Clinic as well as Groupon, but that wasn’t forthcoming. And nor was a reasonable explanation for the cambelt issue.
Finally, Thackray wrote to Consumer Watch for help.
“I have been invoiced for and paid for two cambelts and I am in possession of an old cambelt which was not replaced the first time. I feel cheated,” Thackray said.
I took up the case with Groupon’s Wayne Gosling, since that company bears responsibility for the vendors it chooses to partner with in offering deals to consumers.
REFUNDED, FINALLY
The R1600 cambelt cost was very quickly deposited into Thackray’s bank account.
I asked Gosling whether Groupon was happy to continue to do business with that service centre, in light of this complaint.
His answer? “A cautious yes.”
“They sold 703 services; three ended in refunds prior to the customer redeeming, and then there is this query we have now. With the current issue, they claim it was an honest mistake and it won’t happen again.”
Gosling said Groupon “religiously” tracked refunds and commentary on its partners.
“Should refunds hit 3 percent of a deal they are put on probation and managed daily to hopeful rehabilitation.
“Should they exceed 5 percent they are automatically blacklisted and we never deal with them again.
“In addition, if three complaints come into our customer service team we also approach the partner with these concerns and rehabilitation is attempted, as we are aware that all issues don’t always result in a refund.
“Budget Auto hasn’t caused concern, with the above in mind,” said Gosling.
Well, yes, Thackray’s case certainly wouldn’t have resulted in a refund if it weren’t for Consumer Watch’s intervention.
And as for the “honest mistake” of the replaced cambelt which wasn’t – once that was brought to their attention, there ought to have been a huge apology and an instant refund, not a denial.
That should cause concern, if you ask me.
ANOTHER GROUPON BUNGLE
In the second Groupon case, Warda Salie bought a Groupon voucher for a “VIP package for two people” at Usambara Spa, including a sleepover, in March. It was said to be valued at more than R4000; she paid R1296.
The voucher she got states that it’s valid until next March.
But a very key condition does not appear in the “fine print” at the bottom of that voucher – that voucher holders have to make their booking within just seven working days.
Given that that is an extremely abnormal condition – and, to my mind, consumer unfriendly – it ought to have appeared on that voucher: big, bold and unmissable, never mind in the small print.
When Salie called the spa last month to make a booking, she was told that bookings were closed and she was referred to Groupon.
But she got nowhere with Groupon either.
In the e-mail she received in response, she was told that the fine print stated: “Valid until 6 March 2014. All bookings must be made within 7 working days of purchase. No refunds will be allowed after this period.”
And where did this key information appear? On Groupon’s website, not on the voucher itself.
Totally unacceptable.
I took this matter up with Gosling as well. He responded by saying the problem was “100 percent Groupon’s fault”.
“The clause only went on to the web page and the voucher after the deal was launched, and as such didn’t pull through on to the voucher for the first few sales,” he said.
“Ms Salie was one of those first sales and we have since been in touch with the others,” he said.
Pity Salie wasn’t told that when she raised the matter with Groupon herself.
This case is still in the process of being resolved. If Salie and her husband can’t be accommodated at the original spa, Groupon has offered to put what she paid towards another spa offer, and pay any difference. -The Star