File photo: Cell C subscriber Kenita Rabilal get a Samsung Tab 3 when she upgraded her contract in July. File photo: Cell C subscriber Kenita Rabilal get a Samsung Tab 3 when she upgraded her contract in July.
Pretoria - In the bad old pre-Consumer Protection Act days, companies could decide how to respond when a product a consumer had bought broke in some way.
In almost every case, they’d choose to repair it, because that’s the cheapest option – for them.
And if that repaired item broke again, well, then they’d send it off for repair again. And if it broke a third time – provided it was the same fault – they’d be awfully generous and replace it.
The CPA changed all that, and put the consumer in control – on paper, anyway.
If something you’ve bought malfunctions within six months, and provided that you didn’t cause the problem by accident or through negligence, you have the right to return it for your choice of a refund, a replacement or a repair.
The supplier has the right to send an apparently defective item for assessment in order to rule out user abuse, but they may not take it upon themselves to repair it during that “assessment” process.
If you opt for a repair – or agree to it, not realising that you can choose a refund or a replacement instead – and the product malfunctions again within three months of the repair, the supplier cannot then insist on repairing it again.
They have just one bite at the repair cherry, and after that, the consumer gets to decide whether they want a refund or a replacement.
And there’s more – the second fault doesn’t have to be the same as the original one, according to the act.
So keep all that mind while considering the case of Cell C subscriber Kenita Rabilal.
She got a Samsung Tab 3 when she upgraded her contract in July.
Three weeks later, she reported that its battery was faulty and it was sent for repair. When it was returned to her, the fault persisted – the battery wouldn’t charge at all and the device wouldn’t switch on – so Rabilal asked for a replacement unit, in terms of the CPA.
But instead the device was sent for “assessment” for a second time, and repaired during that process.
“I am furious as I feel I have the right to have this faulty unit replaced,” she told Consumer Watch.
She was right, of course.
What’s more, the e-mails she was sent by Cell C staff appeared to be an alarming contravention of the CPA, and very badly written, too.
So I took up Rabilal’s case with Cell C, stating that the company appeared not to be adhering to the CPA with regard to the return of defective goods.
Spokesman Vinnie Santu’s response went like this: “The customer’s tablet was booked in for repairs twice in just under six months. We carried out the repairs in accordance with our repairs procedure and in line with the manufacturer’s warranty.
“According to our terms and conditions, any Samsung handset returned to Cell C for a third time for the same fault shall be exchanged by Cell C.
“Cell C will then return the accessory or handset to Samsung, who will then exchange it for a new Samsung handset of the same model. In this instance, the customer’s handset was booked for the second time.”
That response is alarming because the manufacturer’s warranty is trumped by the CPA within the first six months of purchase.
Pretoria News