Only direct marketing can insist on packaging
LAST month Arthur Godbeer read a returns sign at the till in Dis-Chem, Nicolway, which struck him as incorrect. It stated that defective goods could be returned within six months, provided they were in their original packaging.
Responding to Godbeer’s observation, Dis-Chem’s operations director, Brian Epstein, told him in an e-mail that the company was “fully aware” of the terms and conditions of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), and that it allowed retailers to “charge a repackaging fee if the goods are not in their original packaging”.
At that point I waded in and explained that, as outlined in this column a few months ago, stores do not have the right to insist that the broken item be returned in its original box, in order to be entitled to their CPA right of a choice of a refund, replacement or repair.
This has been confirmed to Consumer Watch by the National Consumer Commission’s legal director, OC Thupayatiase.
Here’s where the confusion comes in: if you buy an item as a result of direct marketing – a demonstration in a mall, an e-mail – you can return it for a refund, even if there is nothing wrong with it. You have 10 business days in which to cancel, and the supplier can insist on the original
Stores do not have the right to insist that a broken item must be returned in its original box
packaging or charge you a fee to repackage the item.
But buying something from DisChem is not a direct marketing deal.
Responding to Consumer Watch, Epstein said most of Dis-Chem’s notices had been in store “for many years prior to the CPA”, adding: “This is not an excuse – an update in the wording was in progress before we received Mr Godbeer’s letter. We have over 70 stores, so the roll-out of the new policy wording will take a while.” It’s certainly been a while since the CPA came into effect – almost two-and-a-half years.
Epstein went on to say that DisChem staff had accepted many product returns without the original packaging “and have never charged a repackaging fee as we are entitled to charge according to the CPA”.
Um, no, you’re not; not if the item is defective.