‘Empties’ deposits and the CPA: it’s not that clear-cut

A FEWweeks ago I made mention of a liquor outlet that had refused to refund a customer’s deposits on empty beer bottles which he wasn’t replacing with new beer purchases.

At the time, SA Breweries (SAB) told Consumer Watch that while it recommended and encouraged outlets to accept returnable bottles and provide customers with the full deposit value, “the ultimate decision on whether to do so rests with the outlet. There is no legislation or regulation which obligates them to do so.”

Responding, Melissa Bonner of Pretoria-based Potgieter Marais Attorneys argued that the Consumer Protection Act does, in fact, compel liquor retailers to refund deposits on presentation of empties, even if they were not bought at that retailer.

“The CPA states that should a deposit have been paid on a bottle or cylinder, ‘the supplier must pay that person the amount of the deposit that is required to be charged in terms of public regulation, on the date on which the object is refunded to the supplier… irrespective of whether the person returning the container paid a deposit for that object to that supplier’.

“We believe that this section of the CPA governs all deposits on bottles… which is why we find it very

The supplier must pay person the amount of the deposit required

strange that SAB claims that there is no legislation or regulations pertaining to this.

“We, however, do not claim to be authorities on this and interpretation of this specific section and many others in the CPA will only be clarified when it is before the Bench.”

So I went back to SAB with this view and asked for its comments.

“It is correct that section 66 of the CPA provides that liquor retailers are obliged to pay back any deposit payable upon the return of a returnable bottle,” the company said, but it repeated that it was “not in a position to compel them to do so”.

“SAB pays a standard deposit fee irrespective of retailer type, but there are some retailers that have been known to increase the deposit fee paid to the consumer, as a means of ensuring that the returnable bottles are returned.

“Further… the liquor retailer may be out of pocket if it pays back a deposit on a returnable bottle which is higher than the deposit paid by SAB to the liquor retailer for the same bottle.”

The act states “the minister may prescribe a minimum or maximum deposit that a supplier must or may require a consumer to pay in respect of the return of a bottle”.

The minister has not elected to regulate the deposit amount, but clearly the intention was to compel liquor outlets to refund deposits for returned “empties”.

If all liquor outlets simply charged their customers the same deposit amount as SAB pays them for the return of the empties, there’d