Pride refuses to refund pensioner over ‘unwanted’ R33 000 mobility scooter

MRS ALBERTS is about 80 years old and can hardly walk, even with a walker. She has been rushed to hospital on a number of occasions lately with severe heart problems, among other ailments.

She happened to see an advert for a Pride mobility scooter in the Garden and Home magazine. The young dolly bird riding it makes it look so easy and inviting. Mrs Alberts was given a demonstration on September 4. She was so excited she just signed everything and handed over a cheque for R32 793.

Her neighbour had to write the cheque and Mrs Alberts signed it. She signed all the items on a very comprehensive agreement schedule. I asked her how she managed to dismantle the battery and load everything into her car. She says her gardener did it all.

The day before the delivery she told them that she wants to cancel. They said she could not as more than seven days had passed since the order. On the 18th she again asked them to take it back. They refused. She asked me to write to them which I did on September 21. Surely the seven days is once it is in your possession, not while in the mail?

I have seen some very small scooters at a retirement home and in my opinion this is more like a golf cart in comparison. I appealed to them that she would not be able to use the machine. Your opinion and advice would be appreciated. She is willing to lose a 10% handling fee.

Peter Watkins Healthcare & Mobility, the supplier of the Pride mobility scooter, responds: “We have been supplying hundreds of scooters to our clients for over 7 years and as you will see by the attached documentation and photos that we take great care in ensuring that our clients are comfortable in using the scooter that they choose. This includes asking questions regarding physical mobility, hearing and medication that might cause impairment as we will not sell a scooter to a client if they are unable to safely use it. Furthermore, our clients confirm on the agreement that they have had the demonstration of the scooter and feel confident and capable of using it. On the day of purchase when the product specialist wanted to see if Mrs Alberts could put the scooter in the boot and if it fitted, she told the product specialist that she was unable to lift the scooter but that she had someone at the house that would help her. This was confirmed today in a telephonic conversation with her. Mrs Alberts was aware she wasn’t able to lift the scooter into the boot, yet still made the decision to purchase it as she could overcome that and it would still give her the freedom she longed for and we fulfilled our contractual obligation to Mrs Alberts. As an aside and in regards to the CPA, it does not allow for the cancellation of a product after delivery other than in specific circumstances which are not applicable to this case.

I would also like to refer you to the rather defaming and offensive letter (attached) sent by Mr Watkins, who may or may not have had a significant role in this complaint, to which we replied in a professional manner despite the fact that we had no obligation to do so and at no time stated that Mrs Alberts “knew what she was in for when she bought it”.

As previously stated, we endeavour to satisfy our clients and ensure the product is safe and suitable, which is the very reason we go to such great lengths by taking the scooters to our clients to test and allow them to have the final decision as to its suitability.”

Georgie: Mr Watkins wrote to the company asking that it allow Mrs Alberts to return the scooter – he was told it wasn’t his business. I spoke to Mrs Alberts, who gave me a different version of the transaction, in agreement with Mr Watkins. Meanwhile, her family are trying to sell the new scooter.