Ask Wendy: When can a supplier refuse to give you a refund or replacement?

Arrogance and ignorance can become a killer customer service combo, writes consumer journalist Wendy Knowler...

Dave Hopcroft wrote:

“A ‘not-good’ story for your information and possible escalation: I went MTN’s Cresta store to return a mobile charger purchased two days earlier for R300 – despite my best efforts, I could not get more than a 30% charge of a smartphone out of it.

“The customer service agent called the store manager who listened to my story. I said that as they had no other devices , I wanted a full refund so that I could purchase a stronger charger elsewhere.

“The manager picked up device and disappeared for five minutes, returning to bluntly state ‘We cannot give you refund, only an exchange’.

“What followed was a heated debate on the terms of the CPA – me stating that device did not serve the purpose for which it was intended and that I have the right to choose a repair, replacement or a refund.

“He repeatedly tried to state that it didn’t apply to this transaction, even though he claimed to know precisely how the CPA operated, and maintained his ‘exchange only’ solution.

“Eventually, I told him that to get a senior manager on the phone. He moved away and a couple of minutes later he refunded me R300 without a word.

“When I then told him that he needs to brush up on the terms of the CPA, he responded: ‘I know how the CPA works’!

“Possibly you can escalate this within MTN as their Cresta store obviously needs some training – on the CPA as well as basic customer service.”

Wendy:

The CPA states that if a consumer buys a product and within six months it develops some kind of defect, they may return it to the supplier for their choice of refund, repair or replacement. Cellphones and their related accessories are not exempt, and clearly a charger which doesn’t charge a phone beyond 30% of its capacity qualifies as unfit for purpose.

I asked MTN if it had any idea what that store manager meant by his insistence that the CPA’s policy on the return of defective products did not apply to that transaction, and to confirm its policy on the issue.

An MTN spokesman took almost a month to respond to this one.

"In instances where a customer returns a defective device six months after purchase, MTN refunds or exchanges the faulty goods in line with the stipulations outlined by the Consumer Protection Act.

“However, the refunds or exchange of defective goods is subject to approval from the supplier. The manager should have explained this to the customer.

“We continuously upskill our customer facing staff on the CPA to ensure that the feedback they provide to the customers is in line with the provisions set out by this piece of legislation. Unfortunately, there are instances where the CPA might be misinterpreted by the sales staff, and for that MTN sincerely apologises for the oversight."

To clarify, a supplier does not have the right to “approve” a customer’s request for a refund or replacement of a product which proves to be defective within six months of purchase.

They only have the right to have the product technically assessed in order to rule out abuse by the consumer.

These are some of invalid reasons companies have given for denying consumers their right to a full refund for a defective product, within six months of purchase:

* Electrical goods are exempt from the CPA - not true;

* It was on sale so no returns (only true for non-defective items);

* “Okay, we’ll give you a refund but you have to pay a handling fee of 25%”.  This is illegal; if the product is defective within six months, a full refund is due;

We can’t take that back without the original packaging - there’s no legal justification for this in the first six months;

Most ridiculous of all: “You’ve used it so we can’t take it back.”

702/Cape Talk listener questions/feedback:

*Lindi of Rustenburg:

“I bought a heater from a small shop in Jo’burg’s CBD last month but it broke a week later. I took it back and said they’d fixed it, but that ‘repair’ only lasted two days. So I took the heater back this afternoon and asked for a refund, but they refused.”

Wendy:

Clearly Lindi’s CPA right to return a defective product within six months for her choice of recourse is being violated. She was entitled to a refund at the outset. She agreed to the repair, but here’s the thing - a supplier may only repair a defective product once; if it fails again, the consumer gets to choose a refund or replacement.

I’ve advised Lindi to lay a complaint with the Consumer Goods & Services Ombudsman (call 0860 000 272 or email: info@cgso.org.za) or email me: consumer@knowler.co.za

---------------------

*Sarah, calling from San Francisco:

“I bought a dish rack from a Cape branch of a major chainstore and it broke within two weeks. I returned it and asked the store to fix it, but was told I had no recourse because I didn’t have my receipt.”

Wendy:

 Retailers may insist on proof of when and where the allegedly defective product was bought. If you can’t produce it, the warranty is invalid. So always keep your “slips” where you can find them.

------------------------

*Jenny:

“I bought a bed which seemed fine at first but later I realised that it wasn’t good for my back. Do I have any recourse?

Wendy:

Consumers only have the right to return goods for a refund, replacement or repair within six months of purchase if they are defective, or not fit for purpose. Unless the bed is structurally defective, Jenny has no case, as a bed being too soft or too hard for you is a personal preference issue rather than a defect. Unfortunately, with beds, as with shoes, it’s almost impossible to tell, by trying out the product briefly in a store, whether they will be a “good fit” in the long run.

-----------------------

*John from the West Rand:

 “I bought a Samsung smartphone which came with a charger and a year’s guarantee. Six-and-a-bit months later I returned the charger as it was overheating and the connection to the phone was problematic. I was told only the phone was warrantied for a year; the charger, being an accessory, was not. I tried to argue that phone was useless without the charger, but got nowhere.”

Wendy:

Had John returned the charger a few days earlier, when the CPA’s “six months’ implied warranty” was still in place, he’d have been legally entitled to a replacement charger at no cost. But from month seven, suppliers are entitled impose whatever conditions and exclusions they please on their own, voluntary warranties. So while what happened to John was arguably poor customer service, it wasn’t illegal.

* Catch Wendy on Aubrey Masango's Late Night Talk show on Talk Radio 702 and Cape Talk from 11pm to midnight every Tuesday.