Edcon finally agrees to replace faulty cellphone

Why is it still so hard for some corporates to deliver on one of the Consumer Protection Act’s most simple and powerful provisions?

It’s this – if something a customer buys proves to be defective within six months, they get to return it for their choice of a refund, replacement or repair. Not hard.

Yes, the company can choose to first send it for technical assessment to rule out user abuse, but no longer can they insist that a product found to be defective must be repaired.

Or say “Sorry, you’ve missed our seven-day returns cut-off.” But many continue to do so, routinely.

Here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter what internal returns policy a company chooses to adopt – the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) is king, and it overrules any misguided company policy.

Here’s a classic example of how consumers are being denied their basic CPA rights.

Ines Ferreira bought a Vodacom Smart Grande cellphone on promotion from CNA in Eastgate on December 13, which included R300 in airtime.

CNA is a division of the Edcon group.

Ferreira charged the phone for 48 hours, as instructed by the salesman, but from the start it proved to be useless at holding its battery charge for more than half a day, despite being barely used, as Ferreira had yet to transfer her contacts from her old phone.

Two days before Christmas – by which time she’d had the phone for 10 days – Ferreira returned it to the CNA in Eastgate, and was told it would have to be booked in for repair.

When she protested, saying she’d prefer a new phone or her money back, she was pointed to the Cellphone Customer Pick-Up Document she’d signed, saying that faulty phones would only be exchanged – not refunded – provided they were returned within the seven-day “out of box failure” period.

Some retailers will replace or refund a faulty item immediately within seven days, thereafter insisting on sending it off for technical assessment first, which is fine.

But insisting on a repair as the only recourse for a defective product, from day eight after purchase, is a ridiculously blatant contravention of the CPA.

Consumers have a whole six months to return a defective product, for their choice of refund, replacement or repair. And Ferreira knew it, so she asked to speak to a higher-up, and that’s when things got a lot worse.

She alleges a manager pointed out that she’d chosen to sign the Customer Pick-up Document rather than challenging it, making her bound by its terms.

“He was extremely arrogant, and not in the least bit helpful or even vaguely remorseful about the fact that I had purchased a defective phone,” she told In Your Corner.

“He went as far as to challenge me to ‘take on Edcon and see where that gets you’.”

I took up her case with Edcon and shortly afterwards Ferreira received an apology and was told to return the defective phone for a refund.

Edcon’s group media relations manager Vuyo Mtawa said the group’s returns policy on defective merchandise was “very clear” – customers have six months to return defective goods, provided they have proof of purchase.

“To ensure this does not happen again, the cellular team is in contact with all the employees who were involved in the matter to re-educate them on our returns policy,” he said.

Let’s hope that manager got some additional training on interacting appropriately with customers, too.