Consumer Affairs Commission decries unjustifiable ‘no-refund policy’

AS THOUSANDS cram the malls and plazas in search of bargains, a significant number of consumers are being hoodwinked by unscrupulous business people. In what it described as a "frightening pattern," the Consumer Affairs Commission (CAC) said it identified several instances in which consumers were denied compensation with no justifiable reason. "Vendors are often allowed to get away with these dishonest practises because consumers have not properly armed themselves with knowledge," the CAC said.

Since the start of the year it has had to intervene in and resolve some 1,758 complaints in which proprietors refused to make redress. More than half of the reports, 887 cases, involved stores in St. Andrew and St. Catherine and resulted in cash refunds in excess of $2 million. The bulk of the cases involved disputes about appliances, furniture and automotive products.

Each year on average, the Commission resolves more than 2,500 complaints. But despite interventions, a few stores still carry illegal notices of a "no refund - no exchange" policy, a practise the CAC decries as it maintains that "a vendor is responsible for all items sold" whether or not a warranty was given. "It contravenes the Sale of Goods Act to a certain extent," Pash Fuller, western division director for the commission said, "and in the event that there is a clear claim by the consumer then the store owner would be in breach of the law."

Responding to a popular excuse of "factory defect or manufacture's fault" used by some proprietors, Mr. Fuller said, "Once you put things on sale, or indicate that you are up for business, the law says that you are the person with whom the consumer needs to interact. You become responsible for any defect. The law recognises two persons in any contractual arrangement."

In one instance, the commission reported, a complainant purchased a television set and was told it had a specific feature. After paying for and taking home the item she discovered that it did not have the feature that was promised. On informing the vendor she was refused redress in any form. The CAC's intervention resulted in a refund of $20,000.

Under the Sale of Goods Act, which currently operates in Jamaica, the consumer is entitled to a refund under certain conditions. These include instances where "goods sold by description do not match up to the description given", or where "a defect is discovered after a purchase is made which could not have been known at the time of the purchase or until it had been used".

A customer is also entitled to a refund if a purchased item "fails to perform the task for which it is purchased", or if "the customer relying on the merchant's skill and judgement tells him the purpose for which he wishes to buy the item and then discovers it to be unsuitable for that purpose." "We encourage persons to try to determine under what circumstances the policy will come into effect, another option is to shop elsewhere," Mr. Fuller said.

At present the commission does not have the authority under the law to penalise storeowners. "The CAC cannot penalise the storeowner, but redress is available for the individual through the courts, and in this regard the Commission is available to and does assist disgruntled persons in getting a resolution," Mr. Fuller said. With its assistance consumers may acquire redress in the form of repairs, rebates, credit notes and/or cash refunds. In addition the commission is now working on legislation, the Consumer Protection Act, to allow the CAC increased powers as an arbitrator, with opportunity to enforce judgements or recommend appropriate penalties. "It is a very wide ranging piece of legislation and the effect will be to provide a certain amount of balance, and protection for both consumers and vendors."

However, instead of a clear cut "no refund" stance, many stores across the Corporate Area offer a policy of "no cash refund" with the option to exchange the item for one of similar value.

Supervisor of one store on the Pavilion Mall in Kingston, explained that while the store offered no cash refunds, customers could exchanges as long as the store's conditions were met. "If the item is damaged or if the person is unable to produce the receipt for example we wouldn't give an exchange," she said. "On our receipt it is stated that we will make an exchange within seven days of the purchase, but sometimes depending on the situation we do go over the seven days. A customer may also be able to get a refund if for example we are able to identify that it was a manufacturer's defect."

In one pharmacy, the proprietor explained that while the store did have a policy of "no refund," there was no hard and fast application. "What we do is look at the situation and if it's a reasonable one then we would offer a refund or exchange," he said.