Know your rights when returning damaged goods

Many companies ignore the protection act

IT is disturbing how many suppliers — big and small — continue to ignore the basics of consumer protection.

Despite the Consumer Protection Act being implemented more than two years ago, many businesses continue operating outside of the legislation. Even multinationals are known to err in terms of key provisions.

Along with unreasonable contracts and dodgy terms and conditions, a common gripe among consumers is non-compliant returns policies.

However, I find that consumers are often equally unsure of their right to return goods, damaged or not.

So here goes: consumers have the right to return faulty, damaged or poor-quality goods within six months of purchase.

A supplier can insist on having the goods examined — this can take a week or more if the item is sent off site — to determine the cause of damage. If a consumer damages a product, whether deliberate or accidental, the supplier is under no obligation to assist.

If defective, a customer has the right to a full refund, a replacement or a repair. The choice — and this is very important to remember — is the customer’s to make, not the supplier’s. All those stores that insist a repair be done instead of offering a refund or replacement are breaking the law. So are those that provide vouchers or credits in place of a requested cash refund.

Because retailers may ask for proof of purchase if there’s any doubt, it’s worth holding on to receipts for at least six months.

The situation is totally different, however, if there is nothing wrong with a product.

Consumers have no rights of return when it comes to changeof-mind returns, unwanted gifts, wrong sizes and colour, and so on. Buyers’ remorse is not covered by legislation and no sup- plier is bound to take back any item that is not defective.

In these instances, consumers have to rely on suppliers’ goodwill. Fortunately, most reputable retailers allow such returns under certain conditions. These can include a cut-off date for returns, that original tags and packaging are intact and that refunds are in the form of credit or vouchers.

Consumers would do well to choose their retailers based on how they handle returns. Wool-

All those stores that insist a repair be done instead of offering a refund or replacement break the law

worths and Pick n Pay, for instance, have generous, consumer-centric returns policies.

But not all merchants are as accommodating.

Life clothing store in Durban’s Gateway shopping mall is one such business. One of two stores in Durban owned by acclaimed menswear designer Andre Martin, the store appears to lack the basics of customer service and an understanding of the act.

Johannesburg IT specialist Nolan Naidu, who has bought regularly from the exclusive store when visiting the city, will not be doing so again.

His decision comes after a pair of R600 designer jeans were sold to him with a defect — one of the studs had gone through the fabric on one of the legs.

He had not been able to wear the jeans and returned them to the store — as agreed — on a subsequent trip to Durban.

“It was clearly a manufacturing error and they said they would try to fix it,” said Naidu. But months passed with no feedback, until he complained and the jeans were returned to him with two holes where the stud had been.

Disgusted, Naidu left the jeans at the store, returned home and asked a friend in Durban to try to secure a new pair. But his friend got nowhere, and neither did I.

I called the store a month ago, asking that a manager call me back in connection with the complaint. There was no response. When I asked last week how a manager could ignore a media complaint, I was assured that the original message had been given to the manager. This was even worse.

I warned the store of the pending publication of the story, which prompted a call this week asking me for Naidu’s details.

The following day, the store still had not called Naidu. When I queried it, I was told the manager was off for the day.

I gave Life one more shot at explaining itself before deadline the next morning. Nothing happened.

Another tale of shoddy treatment involves a sagging mattress, a noisy bed base and a store embroiled in a legal dispute over its trading name.

All that teacher Leelavathie Moodley wanted was a new bed for her renovated boudoir. She bought a Serta mattress and base set from Bed King in Chatsworth for R7 000. It was on sale.

But when she used the bed, she discovered it was damaged.

“It was impossible to sleep on it,” said Moodley.

“The mattress sagged, the base set made a creaking sound and one set of legs had not been delivered.”

She complained to the store in May and was told to fax the complaint to the manufacturer.

The manufacturer later suggested she choose another bed at the store, but Bed King did not cooperate. She was then of- fered a replacement bed by the manufacturer on condition that she paid a R2 000 upgrade. Moodley refused.

In June, following her persistent complaints, a Serta representative was sent to her home to inspect the bed. He said the mattress was sagging and the base was noisy. He filed a report, after which Moodley was offered a replacement.

By this time, Moodley’s son had bought her another bed, so she requested a store refund instead. When it was not forthcoming, she complained on Hellopeter about Bed King.

She received a response from Bed King Sleep Solutions, which trades in the Western Cape and Gauteng, saying the Chatsworth store was using its name without permission.

When it was approached, the Chatsworth store’s owner, Dev Ramnarain, said there were “certain points stated” by Moodley with which the store was “not in full agreement”.

But in the “spirit of good faith” the store would either replace the bed or provide a full refund, he said.

“It is important to understand the difficulties in dealing with personal items like beds,” said Ramnarain.

“Elements like ‘uncomfortable’ are subjective and cannot be quantified. Normal wear and tear on materials is equally subjective and a customer’s weight plays a huge part too.”

Moodley, by the way, weighs 50kg.

Ramnarain said the company was in dispute with Bed King Sleep Solutions. “Our company has traded for the last 12 years after the old Bruce The Bed King closed down and was rebranded as The Bed King during a management buyout,” he said.

Ten stores in KwaZulu-Natal reopened under the new name in 2001.

Bed King Sleep Solutions’ managing director, Mervyn Ewertse, said his company, which was established in 2000, regularly received complaints from KwaZulu-Natal customers who confuse the two companies. He said several letters of demand to stop Bed King in KwaZulu-Natal from using its registered trademark had been issued without success.

The matter is now headed for court.

Tune in to Power FM’s ‘Power Breakfast’ at 8.40am tomorrow to hear more from Megan