Publications
Partners
The Consumer Protection Act has given SA consumers many rights and more powers when it comes to taking on suppliers over poor services or defective goods. But when is it worth actually pursuing a complaint and is it better than going to court?
Consumer Goods and Services Ombudsman, Adv. Neville Melville explains.
The new mobile phone you’ve just bought stops working and the company refuses to replace it or the furniture you paid for was never delivered. In the past you would need to go to a court of law to get justice, but the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud (CGSO) now provides a forum to resolve complaints quickly and affordably.
Dissatisfied customers can approach the CGSO, which will investigate further and try to mediate a solution between all the parties involved.
If no agreement can be reached, a formal mediation takes place, where the parties are invited to put forward their cases and a mediator tries to facilitate a mutually acceptable settlement.
“We’re also able to facilitate over the phone and provide written assessments recommending how the matter should settle,” adds Melville.
He says the size of financial losses is not the only deciding factor that drives people to take a complaint further:
“We’ve had claims for millions of rands, but also complaints about something as small as a litre of milk. Some consumers feel they should formalise a complaint simply out of principle – and we are happy to assist in almost all cases.”
Cheaper, faster
The benefits of seeking a solution through an ombud versus through the courts, is that consumers are likely to get faster resolution. The average age of cases closed by the CGSO is 16 days, while the average age of open cases is 74 days.
“The best result we had was from a clothing retailer who agreed to a settlement within two hours of the CGSO sending the complaint through,” says Melville.
“Compare that to the court system, which is both expensive and time consuming and where you may wait years for a settlement.”
He says not all cases submitted to the CGSO involve monetary compensation – some complainants simply want what they see as fair – such as an apology or the system to be improved.
Melville points out that just like the Oscar Pistorius trial, evidence lies at the heart of informal dispute resolution.
“The type of evidence you would need to build your case would include till slip or proof of purchase, a high definition photo of the alleged defect or copy of the brochure that the special was advertised in, for example,” he explains.
“If it is a case of food poisoning, you would need to preserve the suspect food item and hand over to one of the health authorities listed on the CGSO website for testing.”
Expert witnesses from a panel of experts may be called in if necessary and inspectors may be appointed.
“In the past we have outsourced the inspection of cracked television screens to determine whether it was a factory fault or the result of an over-enthusiastic Wii player!” says Melville
In another case, a jeweller was consulted to determine the cause of damages to a valuable necklace and in other cases, items can be sent off to the South African Bureau of Standards to check whether goods are up to standard.
“Factors that would not be considered relevant during mediation include how many other complaints the company has listed against them on websites such as Hello Peter; how shocked, appalled or distressed or emotional the complainant was; or comparison to similar products.”
The findings of the CGSO are not binding on either party, but if the issue is not resolved by the ombudsman, parties are informed of their right to approach the National Consumer Commission. The vast majority of complaints, however, are resolved at the Ombud level.
“While we cannot award damages, we can persuade a supplier to do so,” adds Melville.
“But if a soda bottle explodes and injures someone, as has been reported elsewhere in the world, and they want R1 million, we would suggest they go to court,” explains Melville.
The benefits of resolving the issue outside of court, however, are obvious. Concludes Melville:
“Mediation is free and less intimidating than a court of law; you do not require legal representation; and you’re far more likely to come out with a win-win solution.”
Follow Women24 on Twitter and like us on Facebook.
Consumer Goods and Services Ombudsman, Adv. Neville Melville explains.
The new mobile phone you’ve just bought stops working and the company refuses to replace it or the furniture you paid for was never delivered. In the past you would need to go to a court of law to get justice, but the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud (CGSO) now provides a forum to resolve complaints quickly and affordably.
Dissatisfied customers can approach the CGSO, which will investigate further and try to mediate a solution between all the parties involved.
If no agreement can be reached, a formal mediation takes place, where the parties are invited to put forward their cases and a mediator tries to facilitate a mutually acceptable settlement.
“We’re also able to facilitate over the phone and provide written assessments recommending how the matter should settle,” adds Melville.
He says the size of financial losses is not the only deciding factor that drives people to take a complaint further:
“We’ve had claims for millions of rands, but also complaints about something as small as a litre of milk. Some consumers feel they should formalise a complaint simply out of principle – and we are happy to assist in almost all cases.”
Cheaper, faster
The benefits of seeking a solution through an ombud versus through the courts, is that consumers are likely to get faster resolution. The average age of cases closed by the CGSO is 16 days, while the average age of open cases is 74 days.
“The best result we had was from a clothing retailer who agreed to a settlement within two hours of the CGSO sending the complaint through,” says Melville.
“Compare that to the court system, which is both expensive and time consuming and where you may wait years for a settlement.”
He says not all cases submitted to the CGSO involve monetary compensation – some complainants simply want what they see as fair – such as an apology or the system to be improved.
Melville points out that just like the Oscar Pistorius trial, evidence lies at the heart of informal dispute resolution.
“The type of evidence you would need to build your case would include till slip or proof of purchase, a high definition photo of the alleged defect or copy of the brochure that the special was advertised in, for example,” he explains.
“If it is a case of food poisoning, you would need to preserve the suspect food item and hand over to one of the health authorities listed on the CGSO website for testing.”
Expert witnesses from a panel of experts may be called in if necessary and inspectors may be appointed.
“In the past we have outsourced the inspection of cracked television screens to determine whether it was a factory fault or the result of an over-enthusiastic Wii player!” says Melville
In another case, a jeweller was consulted to determine the cause of damages to a valuable necklace and in other cases, items can be sent off to the South African Bureau of Standards to check whether goods are up to standard.
“Factors that would not be considered relevant during mediation include how many other complaints the company has listed against them on websites such as Hello Peter; how shocked, appalled or distressed or emotional the complainant was; or comparison to similar products.”
The findings of the CGSO are not binding on either party, but if the issue is not resolved by the ombudsman, parties are informed of their right to approach the National Consumer Commission. The vast majority of complaints, however, are resolved at the Ombud level.
“While we cannot award damages, we can persuade a supplier to do so,” adds Melville.
“But if a soda bottle explodes and injures someone, as has been reported elsewhere in the world, and they want R1 million, we would suggest they go to court,” explains Melville.
The benefits of resolving the issue outside of court, however, are obvious. Concludes Melville:
“Mediation is free and less intimidating than a court of law; you do not require legal representation; and you’re far more likely to come out with a win-win solution.”
Follow Women24 on Twitter and like us on Facebook.
