No-refund policies leave customers high, dry
SMALL retailers, also known as runners, have created challenges for established retail outlets and consumers alike. Well, runners are selling a wide range of merchandise such as clothes, shoes, kitchenware, groceries and even vehicle spare parts and hardware accessories.
They have probably become the favourite of many — ahead of giant retailers — because they usually have their stuff pegged at lower prices.
They are also open to negotiations, which naturally attracts customers.
But of late, the runners seem to be having running battles with some of their clients after selling what are being perceived as sub-standard goods.
Picture this: A local carpenter bought a screwdriver from one of the runners.
The product cost him slightly less than half the price it was being sold for in a reputable outlet. However, working on basics, the tool broke on its first day of use.
Talk of cheap is expensive!
The carpenter felt cheated and naturally went back to the seller for a refund.
He was instantly shown a screaming insignia in the shop that reads: “No Returns, No Refunds”. A skirmish, which almost turned physical, ensued.
He wanted his money back, but the seller made it clear that this was impossible.
After the melee, they eventually settled for the customer taking another product of the same value, which he grudgingly did.
These seemingly innocuous signs, “No Returns, No Refunds”, plastered across stalls and shops, have far-reaching consequences for consumers, especially when coupled with subpar product quality.
Some runners often operate without proper documents or formal structures, which becomes a nightmare when a customer seeks recourse for any grievance.
Most of the goods can barely withstand the test of time. A pair of shoes bought today may unravel at the seams tomorrow, leaving consumers frustrated. A “No Returns, No Refunds” policy loosely means that a transaction is a one-way street; once you have parted with your hard-earned money, there is no turning back.
Whether it is a malfunctioning smartphone or a dress with a faulty zipper, the burden rests squarely on the buyer’s shoulders.
The absence of recourse exacerbates the frustration felt by those who discover defects or substandard performance of goods bought.
Surprisingly, even some formal businesses are now adopting similar policies.
Whether driven by cost-cutting measures or lack of awareness, they, too, deny consumers the right to return faulty products.
These establishments, often perceived as more reliable, perpetuate the cycle of discontent.
When a reputable store refuses a refund, disillusionment sets in, eroding trust in the entire marketplace. Education is key.
Consumers must know their rights and assert them confidently.
When faced with a faulty purchase, they should insist on returns or refunds, armed with knowledge of the Consumer Protection Act.
Civil society organisations and consumer advocacy groups must raise awareness by educating both buyers and traders, urging them to foster a culture of accountability and ensure a fair marketplace.
Formal businesses should lead by example, rather than hiding behind restrictive policies.
They can build trust by embracing customer-friendly practices.
Transparent return policies and quality assurances benefit everyone.
The battle against “No Returns, No Refunds” policies should be taken to a new high so that we promote fair business practices. As local consumers navigate the labyrinth of market stalls, they deserve protection and fairness. The Consumer Protection Act stands as a beacon, but its effectiveness depends on collective action.
DLet us champion consumer rights. ID you know that the Consumer Protection Act recognises the need to level the playing field between consumers and businesses?
Its key provisions include:
◆ Right to return: Section 21 of the Act explicitly addresses displays that declare “no returns, exchanges and refunds”. It unequivocally outlaws such notices, emphasising that consumers have the right to seek redress when goods fail to meet standards. Traders who cling to their rigid policies now face penalties, including imprisonment of up to five years.
◆ Quality assurance: The Act places the onus on suppliers to deliver goods and services that meet reasonable expectations. Defective products fall squarely within its purview, whether it is a flimsy umbrella or a malfunctioning blender, consumers can demand accountability.
◆ Alternative dispute resolution: The Act encourages mediation and arbitration as alternatives to lengthy court battles. Consumers can seek resolution without resorting to legal proceedings, saving time and resources.