PC Zone

Wendy Knowler does stress the proof of purchase importance... she advises;

have to confess to not being a particularly organised person. Admin is not my thing. But neither is not being able to exercise my consumer rights, so I force myself to hold on to my till slips; and a copy of every contract I sign gets put into a file called, funnily enough, Contracts; and all warranty documentation goes into a separate file.

A separate warranty file is also a must. Photocopy the receipt – because it fades pretty quickly, rendering your proof of purchase useless – and staple it to the warranty document before filing.
Click to expand...

There is no mention of CPA and retailers charging for proof of purchase reprints that I can find.

And it seems as if PCZone has been mentioned by her before;

Trevor Lagerwall tipped off Consumer Alert that a Durban-based computer company, PC Zone, has been getting their customers to sign a page of small-print terms and conditions, among which is one under “repairs”, which states: “The consumer hereby elects to allow PC Zone the opportunity of repairing the defective goods first, prior to refund or exchange.”

“My son was told by staff at the Pinetown branch that he would not be able to purchase the item without signing the form,” Lagerwall said.

In an e-mail to PC Zone’s Chantelle van Rensburg, I stated the company no longer had the right to insist on repairing goods first, and thus that term did not comply with the CPA.

<snip>

When I pointed out that the term in question was one of about 20, in small print, and could not be called eye-catching, Van Rensburg responded: “We are still coming to grips with the CPA and are trying to be compliant in all respects. As such, and as part of our ‘work-in-progress’ terms, we shall highlight that clause in bold and it shall be underlined. We are also considering a listing of items to which the election will apply.”

But Consumer Commissioner Mamodupi Mohlala was clear that the term constituted contracting out of the act.

The CPA states that the supplier may not adopt any term or condition which defeats the purpose of the act, or “waives or deprives” a consumer of any right in terms of the act or avoids the supplier’s obligations in terms of the act.

I put this to Van Rensburg and asked for her response. She said she’d only do so once she’d had a response from Mohlala.

“I have raised a query and requested an explanation and understanding of a specific extract out of the act.

“If we are going to be changing our terms, at a cost to us which is more than R20 000, then I would like an answer to my question, in writing, from the Commission’s office.

“Once I have received such reply in writing, I will respond to you.”
Click to expand...

I wonder if she ever responded...
 
Esquire said:
what you receiving from us when you place your order online is Web Order not the actual Tax Invoice, your invoice is printed when you collect your goods from us
or it is send by courier if you choose the courier option , that hard copy of the invoice is signed by the courier and the waybill is stapled to the copy for our records
Click to expand...

BURN!!! It rubs the lotion on it's skin.....

Yeah I realised that a minute after posting... :-)
 
Esquire said:
it has never been an issue since we introduced the Xpress card as proof that you are the original purchaser of the goods:)
I am addicted to this forum :D I really need to get some work done.
Click to expand...

How do I get the card?
 
kilobits said:
Wendy Knowler does stress the proof of purchase importance... she advises;



There is no mention of CPA and retailers charging for proof of purchase reprints that I can find.

And it seems as if PCZone has been mentioned by her before;



I wonder if she ever responded...
Click to expand...

These farckers are still doing this. Sent in a ups that failed in a week and they now have sent it to supplier for testing rather than replacing the item on the spot.
 
tRoN said:
These farckers are still doing this. Sent in a ups that failed in a week and they now have sent it to supplier for testing rather than replacing the item on the spot.
Click to expand...

Isn't this normal?
What happens if they send it to supplier, and they discover that the end user has been negligent which in the end of the day costs the business money. The CPA needs to protect both the customer and supplier.

Where is the bit in the CPA that states who chooses Refund/replacement/warranty.
 
HideInLight said:
Isn't this normal?
What happens if they send it to supplier, and they discover that the end user has been negligent which in the end of the day costs the business money. The CPA needs to protect both the customer and supplier.

Where is the bit in the CPA that states who chooses Refund/replacement/warranty.
Click to expand...

They have in house technicians that can test it on the spot and make a decision which the supplier could respect.

See post 102 above that mentions that the customer gets to choose repair Vs refund
 
They practice the Southern African methods of customer service.

I was in the store for 15 minutes and was never attended to so they lost a R8k sale and I'm most likely never to go back. Prices are decent but I'd rather shop online or buy bits and bobs from Mitabyte.
 
They may have technicians, but they don't have the specialists though.
Do they have someone certified to open up a UPS without voiding the warranty?

The thing is the manufactures have the specialists and they at the end can supply the replacement.
The current problem seems to be the long waiting period for them to confirm if they can fix/replace it.

A few bad rushed on the spot calls can put these retailers out of business fast, especially if the customers aren't always honest.
There's been way too many chancers who've see the manufactures of having endless pockets and are the retailer is getting caught in the middle.

The whole issue in the end comes to providing a replacement/refund in due time and with certainty.

Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008: Implied warranty of quality

Section 56 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 provides for an implied warranty of quality in respect of goods supplied to a consumer, in that each of the producer, importer, distributor and retailer of a product gives an implied warranty of quality in respect of a product in any transaction or agreement for the supply of those products.
The warranty is mainly to the effect that the product:

is generally suitable for the purpose for which it is generally intended;
is of good quality, in good working order and free of defects;
will be useable and durable for a reasonable period of time, having regard to the use to which the product would normally be put and to all the surrounding circumstances of its supply; and
complies with any applicable standards set under the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Act 5 of 2008, or any other public regulation.

In determining whether the goods in question satisfied the above requirements, all the circumstances of the supply of the goods will be considered, including:

the manner in which, and the purposes for which, the goods were marketed, packaged and displayed, the use of any trade description or mark, any instructions for, or warnings with respect to the use of the goods;
the range of things that might reasonably be anticipated to be done with or in relation to the goods; and
the time when the goods were produced or supplied.

The warranty does not apply where goods have been altered contrary to the instructions, or after leaving the control of the producer or importer, a distributor or the retailer, as the case may be.

The statutory warranty cannot be excluded contractually and it applies alongside any other express or contractual warranty that is given.

The most important remedy for breach of the implied warranty of quality is that the consumer can return the goods to the supplier (this being person who directly sold the product to the consumer) within six months of delivery (or purchase), without penalty and at the supplier’s risk and expense. The consumer can elect whether to (1) have the goods repaired or replaced; or (2) have the purchase price refunded.

The CPA also provides for a warranty on repaired goods. In terms of section 57, a service provider warrants, for a period of three months after the date of installation (or such longer period as the supplier may specify), every new or reconditioned part installed during the repair or maintenance work as well as the labour.

A warranty in terms of section 57: (a) is concurrent with any other deemed, implied or express warranty; (b) is void if the consumer has subjected the part, or the goods or property in which it was installed, to misuse or abuse; and (c) does not apply to ordinary wear and tear, having regard to the circumstances in which the goods are intended to ordinarily be used.
Click to expand...
 
CataclysmZA said:
There's also the point that it failed to work beyond a week.
Click to expand...

Yep 3 days to be exact.
In fact it may have been DOA but only noticed when there was load shedding 3 days later.
 
tRoN said:
What's the point? You implying I damaged the UPS?
Why you defending PC zone ? There have been many complaints about them.
Click to expand...

My recent dealings with a deal on carbonate made me open my eyes a bit:
http://carbonite.co.za/f3/advice-recent-trade-94722/

The thing is a product can be faulty, but the end user can also can make mistake, and in some cases just be gross negligent.

The only ones that can determine that is the techs and manufactures, but in order to do that it needs to go the supplier first.
You cannot simply expect and instant refund on the spot, and expect them to take a 100% risk without letting them get an expert to look at it first.

I had a harddrive that legitimately failed when going over 700GB, I had to send back to Kalahari, I needed to go through a process, they weren't gonna give a refund in one day.

The CPA is currently flawed in terms of timing, especially when you really need something that works ASAP.
There needs to be an option provided where you could get a replacement asap, and have the risk reduced on both sides. Because atm there's way too many people trying their luck or just being outright incompetent.

Guess if there's a long standing relationship between a client and the shop then they could afford to take the risk.
 
HideInLight said:
My recent dealings with a deal on carbonate made me open my eyes a bit:
http://carbonite.co.za/f3/advice-recent-trade-94722/

The thing is a product can be faulty, but the end user can also can make mistake, and in some cases just be gross negligent.

The only ones that can determine that is the techs and manufactures, but in order to do that it needs to go the supplier first.
You cannot simply expect and instant refund on the spot, and expect them to take a 100% risk without letting them get an expert to look at it first.

I had a harddrive that legitimately failed when going over 700GB, I had to send back to Kalahari, I needed to go through a process, they weren't gonna give a refund in one day.

The CPA is currently flawed in terms of timing, especially when you really need something that works ASAP.
There needs to be an option provided where you could get a replacement asap, and have the risk reduced on both sides. Because atm there's way too many people trying their luck or just being outright incompetent.

Guess if there's a long standing relationship between a client and the shop then they could afford to take the risk.
Click to expand...

I understand but DOA or OOBF within a week should warrant an immediate replacement and they can sort out with supplier on the same basis according to CPA.
I'm having a bad run with tech. Bought a 6tb hard drive from first technology. They sent it in a big box without bubblewrap. Guess what...it failed...now I'm waiting for them to pickup.
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1425234185.878088.jpg
 
tRoN said:
I understand but DOA or OOBF within a week should warrant an immediate replacement and they can sort out with supplier on the same basis according to CPA.
I'm having a bad run with tech. Bought a 6tb hard drive from first technology. They sent it in a big box without bubblewrap. Guess what...it failed...now I'm waiting for them to pickup.
View attachment 195504
Click to expand...

Hope mines is fine, received one out of the bubble-wrap, but luckily there's a lot of peanuts and smaller box so should be fine.
 
HideInLight said:
Doesn't justify a "on the spot replacement" though.
Click to expand...

Maybe it depends on the supplier/shop especially if its an EOL thing or the last one in stock, but it definitely qualifies for an immediate refund.
 
mintydroid said:
They practice the Southern African methods of customer service.

I was in the store for 15 minutes and was never attended to so they lost a R8k sale and I'm most likely never to go back. Prices are decent but I'd rather shop online or buy bits and bobs from Mitabyte.
Click to expand...

I've had stuff that was faulty or broke within 6 months from Mitabyte. They replaced me on the spot without even asking for a receipt but by just checking the device's S/N. One item went back to the supplier and it was replaced the very next day. That's called good customer service :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X