Tag Archives: National Consumer Commission

SA Butler Academy apologises to 2019 student Lin Yang, and to refund her costs by court order!

In 2019 I met Lin Yang, a Singaporean who studied at the South African Butler Academy at what it claimed to be a world class institution, given the marketing promises made on its website. She was expelled from the course on the third day of her studies, allegedly due to being late for her classes. She was not refunded her course fees , and headed to our High Court on a three year journey to obtain her fees and costs back.

After her experience with the SA Butler Academy she embarked on extensive research about the training institution, evaluating its website in the English and Chinese webpages, its brochure, and any other communication about the institution on Google. She interacted with close to 90 other students of the institution, receiving input from them, finding that there were a large number of similar experiences.

In doing so, she found my 2013 Blogpost about the SA Butler Academy and its misleading marketing, which I had discovered by analysing its website, after I had a bad experience with a student of the institution as a short-lived guest house employee.

My 2013 Blogpost visibility arose from the number of students who have found it on the first page of Google when one searches ‘SA Butler Academy’, despite intensive attempts by the institution to fill its space with links and videos as to push my Blogpost further down onto page 2 or even lower. My Blogpost doggedly remains on on page one of Google, even ten years later!

Miss Lin and I met, and since then we have remained in touch. She refers SA Butler Academy students who have problems with the institution to my SA Butler Academy Blogposts, including the 2013 one. In the past three years Miss Lin has been determined to find any avenue to evaluate the truthfulness or not of the SA Butler Academy claims made on its website. She found, for example, that :

*. SA Butler Academy owner Newton Cross had not been the Butler of the late President Mandela, as claimed. Miss Lin reported this to the Mandela Foundation, which pressurised the institution to remove his name from its website.

*. Miss Lin was shocked that a photograph of her and a classmate was used on the Academy website for publicity purposes, despite only attending two days of the course and being a litigant against the Academy.

*. She discovered that the SA Butler Academy could not provide proof for the following claims made by the institution on its website:

#. That its courses are accredited

#. That it has proof of its claim of ‘No. 1 Butler School in the World’

#. That SA Butler Academy owner Newton Cross holds a claimed qualification from the ’Buckingham Palace Butler School’

#. Newton Cross’ claim that he worked as a Butler on the Queen Mary 2 cruise ship, when he in fact was merely a waiter.

#. That Newton Cross has worked as a Butler, as claimed, for Former President Bill Clinton, Former President Bush Senior, Former President Mbeki, the late President Mandela, Oprah Winfrey, golfer Tiger Woods, and a number of other celebrities.

#. The partner businesses SA Butler Academy and Guild Recruitment jointly misled students: the SA Butler Academy promised students that they would receive jobs via its Guild Recruitment. Guild Recruitment would advertise Butler jobs, encouraging prospective applicants to do the SA Butler Academy course if they were not already a student or graduate of the institution.

Miss Lin also lodged complaints with the following authorities :

*. The City of Cape Town, for a building accommodating the SA Butler Academy students whilst on the course (students were forced to use the overcrowded accommodation and were charged an additional fee), in violation of a City by-law to use private accommodation for commercial purposes.

*. The Equality Court, which became a directional hearing, and advised that it was not the correct forum for her to claim the funds owed.

*. The National Consumer Commission, where she and 22 other past students of the SA Butler Academy have a class action against the institution.

*. As her residential address and photograph were published on the SA Butler Academy website, Miss Lin approached the POPI (Protection of Personal Information) Regulator to lodge a complaint.

*. Carte Blanche, to whom she and other fellow students reported the matter, and in November 2020 Derek Watts interviewed Miss Lin and I about the misleading marketing claims made by the SA Butler Academy on its website, followed by the broadcast in December 2020. This was a powerful step forward for Miss Lin, yet the institution persevered in not refunding her the course fees. A large number of students interacted with Miss Lin after this exposé on Carte Blanche.

https://www.chrisvonulmenstein.com/blog/cape-town/carte-blanche-exposes-sa-butler-academy-marketing-deception-first-exposed-on-whaletales-blog-in-2013

https://m.facebook.com/profile.php/?id=100068498080492

Given the amount of pressure which Miss Lin was placing on the SA Butler Academy, the institution created a page of disparagement on its website, defaming her and claiming that she had mental issues. I too have the ‘honour’ of featuring on such a page on the institution’s website, a rage reaction about the high ranking of my 2013 Blogpost, hoping that it would diminish the credibility of my 2013 Blogpost, which obviously has impacted on the credibility of the SA Butler Academy.

Ultimately Miss Lin appointed legal firm Dunsters Attorneys, and excellent advocate Adam Brink, for legal action. A year ago she and the legal team were granted 3 August 2023 as the court date. The SA Butler Academy started an interlocutor motion, requesting R500000 security for costs, possibly to persuade Miss Lin to withdraw her case, but this motion was rejected by the judge as she is regarded an Incola.

On 3 August 2023 an Agreement between Miss Lin and the defendants South African Butler Academy cc, Butler Holdings (Pty) Ltd, Butler Training (Pty) Ltd, Guild Recruitment (Pty) Ltd, Newton Hilton Cross, and Willem Adriaan Coetzer was made a Court Order (Case number 10430/2020):

1. The Defendants will repay to the Plaintiff the fee paid by her of USD 5200, at the exchange rate on the date of payment by her to the Defendants, plus the sum of R32 947, 62, plus interest on both sums at the prescribed rate from 30 April 2019.

2. The Plaintiff abandons any claim against the Defendants for damages flowing from the defendants’ unauthorised use of the Plaintiff’s image for publicity, and the violation of her dignity.

3. The plaintiff withdraws the complaint with the National Consumer Commission and the Information Regulator against the defendants.

4. The Defendants will pay the Plaintiffs costs on a party and party scale, subject to the following:

4.1. limiting the Plaintiff’s counsel’s costs with respect to appearance at the trial to those incurred for the hearing on 3 August 2023; and

4.2. Each party to pay their own costs reserved in the order of the Honourable Justice Meer of 24 February 2021; and

5. The parties will agree to publish the joint statement annexed hereto marked ‘A’ ‘

I took on the SA Butler Academy to also assist other aggrieved past students as well as future students to be protected against the misleading marketing of the institution’, she said. She is particularly concerned about protecting the rights and interests of female students, stating that not all students have other qualifications from reputable educational institutions as she has been fortunate to experience.

In the past four years of living here, waiting for the Court date and action, Ms Lin experienced the beautiful natural resources of our country, praising them, and expressed the hope that there would be better governance of them.

She thanked her legal team for their dedicated action in her case against the SA Butler Academy, her advocate being happy with the positive outcome.

She wishes her fellow 22 students well at the National Consumer Commission in their class action against the SA Butler Academy. Ms Lin is no longer part of this action.

Chris von Ulmenstein, WhaleTales Blog: www.chrisvonulmenstein.com/blog Tel +27 082 55 11 323

Twitter:@Ulmenstein

Facebook: Chris von Ulmenstein, My Cape Town Guide/Mein Kapstadt Guide, WhaleTales Blog

Instagram: @Chrissy_Ulmenstein @MyCapeTownGuide @whaletalesblog @campsbayclean

Meat labeling scandal: SA retailers mince their words! Gordon Ramsay may be a-maze-d!

A study conducted last year by the University of Stellenbosch Animal Sciences department has found that more than 80 of 139 meat products (about 60%!) from a range of supermarkets around South Africa were found to contain ingredients not specified on the labels, City Press reported yesterday.  All local retailers were incriminated in the study, but most have carefully minced their words, not accepting responsibility for the findings.

The results of the study conducted between April and August 2012 were initially withheld, but a Media24 Investigations application for ‘Access to Information’ was successful in making the detailed information available. The key findings of the study were that:

*   almost 60% of the meat products tested contained the ‘DNA’ of donkey, water buffalo, goat, and pork, which were not specified on the product labels.  More specifically

+   Food Lover’s Market Westville’s cheese beef burgers contained the DNA of water buffalo, sheep, and chicken, unlabeled, in addition to the beef

+   Mutton mince from the same Food Lover’s Market also contained beef, pork, and chicken

+   Boerewors from Grobbies Butchery in KwaZulu-Natal was found to also contain pork, sheep, donkey, and chicken

+   Checkers Stellenmbosch’s housebrand beef boerewors also contained pork

+   Mutton bangers at the same Checkers branch also contained beef and pork.

+   Pick ‘n Pay East Rand Mall’s boerewors housebrand specifies beef, but was found to contain the DNA of pork and sheep.

+   Woolworths’ French polony contained DNA of chicken

*   some products do not contain the main meat ingredient reflected on the pack, so that a beef burgers were found to be more chicken than beef.

The study was conducted last year under the guidance of the University’s Professor Louw Hoffman, ‘one of the world’s foremost meat researchers’, just after food labeling legislation was introduced, demanding far stricter food labeling requirements. The new legislation allows for stiff fines and even imprisonment for non-compliance, but appears to not have been actioned yet. The University stated that the DNA presence in the samples tested did not imply a health risk to consumers, and could have come from using the same equipment on the same surfaces for the cutting or mincing of different meat types, without cleaning them in between.

The National Consumer Commission had meat tested which had been imported from Brazil via Sweden, after a tip-off that it may contain horse meat, but this ingredient was not found. Ironically infamous chef Gordon Ramsay endorsed Checkers steak and also its Championship Boerewors in a TV advertising campaign last October – he may regret his endorsement, given the release of yesterday’s findings, indicating that 20 of 32 Checkers and Shoprite products were incorrectly labeled.

Professor Hoffman concluded that meat product mislabeling is a common occurrence in South Africa, which is illegal, but it is also offensive to religious groups not eating certain meat types, is unethical, and could be unhealthy!

Most supermarket chains had their PR machines issuing statements immediately, mincing their words about a finding that can hurt their businesses badly.  All were quick to blame ‘cross-contamination’ for the test results, reported News24.  Woolworths said that it would investigate, believing that ‘cross contact‘ was the cause, and not ‘deliberate adulteration‘.  Shoprite also indicated that it had not deliberately misled consumers, and that it did not make economic sense to add lamb to a beef product, due to its higher cost. Pick ‘n Pay stated that the traces of other meat types were ‘minute’, and within the 1% allowance of undeclared products caused by cross-contamination. Spar said that the industry should improve labeling.

The international horse-meat scandal, and the results released of the local meat labeling study are cause for concern, and are likely to move consumers to reduce their (especially processed) meat intake, to buy at more upmarket supermarkets such as Woolworths, and/or to go back to buying meat from a trusted butcher.

Chris von Ulmenstein, Whale Cottage Portfolio: www.whalecottage.com Twitter: @WhaleCottage

Consumer Protection Act appears to have become an April Fools’ joke!

Last year, on April Fools’ Day, the Consumer Protection Act became effective, and was heralded as being much-needed legislation to protect consumers against poor service, misleading advertising, and the sale of shoddy products. With the legislation came the establishment of the National Consumer Commission, which was to receive complaints from the public against businesses contravening the Act, and to act against them. Now it appears that the National Consumer Commission is a near failure at executing its mandate.

According to The Times, the National Consumer Commission’s head Mamodupi Mohlala-Malaudzi has become a keen issuer of compliance notices against businesses, many of which have been overturned by the Consumer Tribunal, at a great cost to the businesses affected even if they were successful in getting their cases withdrawn.  A report prepared by the Consumer Tribunal about the operation of the National Consumer Commission has found that its major weaknesses are that compliance notices have been issued without following the correct procedure or being ‘defective’, ‘failure of the commission to understand the act’, issuing notices which the Consumer Protection Act does not allow, badly written documents with errors, ‘contemptuous and unprofessional conduct by the commission when dealing with opposing lawyers and the tribunal‘, and ‘undermining the work of the tribunal’, very serious allegations indeed!  In addition, the National Consumer Commission was found to base its decisions on ‘subjective views’.

It was the findings of this (confidential) Consumer Tribunal report that the National Consumer Commission used to (unsuccessfully) try to have the Consumer Tribunal’s rejection of the Commission’s case against Auction Alliance set aside in the Pretoria High Court.

A compliance notice can cost a business found guilty in terms of the Consumer Protection Act R1 million or 10% in annual turnover if the ruling of the National Consumer Commission is not adhered to.  To date 33 cases have been referred to the Consumer Tribunal, including companies such as Eskom, City of Johannesburg, BMW, Audi SA, Peugeot Citroen SA, Kia, Volkswagen, Telkom, Vodacom, MTN, Top-TV, Cell C, and Multichoice. Of these, the correct procedure in issuing a compliance notice was not followed in six cases, and the Commission did not file responding affidavits to thirteen of the notices!  The newspaper article quotes the example of the City of Johannesburg, against which 45 compliance notices have been set aside!  Only big corporates can afford to challenge a compliance order, due to the cost involved, meaning that smaller businesses are forced to abide by such orders, even if the complaint is unjustified.

It would appear that Mohlala-Malaudzi’s days are numbered at the National Consumer Commission, as her contract with the Commission has not been renewed, expiring at the end of September, a matter which she took to the Labour Court and lost.

In dealing with businesses, it is surprising how few companies know about the Consumer Protection Act, and abide by it.  One of the clauses of the Act prescribes that all repair work must be preceded by written and signed off quotes, but this rarely happens, as we have experienced for car services and repairs at Mercedes Benz in Century City, where they are quick to add R10000 – R20000 of extra nice-to-have part replacements.  We also saw a notice at All Active Electric in Sea Point, which states that repair quotes not accepted will be charged at R50, contravening the Act. Two lamps were given to this company to be fixed, one requiring a wire to be fitted back into the switch, and another needing the brass fitting holding the bulb to be repaired. We were shocked when the bill came to R150, 50% of the purchase cost of the lamps, with additional repairs done which were not requested.  When queried, the staff member quickly dropped the price to R95.  No quote was received, and even the lower price felt like a rip off, despite the quick 24 hour service.  Action TV came to fix a TV channel reception problem at our guest house last week, and could not find a solution on its first visit, despite having done past repairs. A ‘booster‘ was deemed to be necessary, and despite asking, we were not given a quote, being promised one the following day!   The bill has come to R4650, including the booster costing R1780, cabling to the value of R950, and a number of splitters.  The TV system was installed at the guest house 14 years ago, and has worked perfectly without all these extra items.

It is clear that the National Consumer Commission needs to get its house in order, and that it needs a new broom when its head leaves its employ.  It clearly also needs an advertising campaign to inform business owners of their obligations in terms of repair quotations.

Chris von Ulmenstein, Whale Cottage Portfolio:   www.whalecottage.com Twitter: @WhaleCottage

Cape Consumer Court for complaining customers coming!

Interesting is the news that the Western Cape province is to introduce a Consumer Affairs Tribunal next month, given the existence of the National Consumer Commission which deals with consumer complaints relating to the Consumer Protection Act nationally.  The reason for this may be that the National Consumer Commission appears to be understaffed.

The Western Cape has had its own Consumer Protector for a number of years, and received 9000 consumer complaints in 2011, of which it was able to resolve two-thirds, reports the Cape Argus.  Complaints which have received ‘stalemate‘ status between supplier and customer will be the first ones to be heard by the Consumer Affairs Tribunal, which will run like a court.  Outcomes of cases heard by the Consumer Affairs Tribunal will be the replacement of products or the payment of refunds/compensation to consumers.  A similar consumer court has already been introduced in the Gauteng province. The largest number of consumer complaints relate to the motor industry, ‘serial offender’ cellphone companies, and small food retailers, says the National Consumer Forum.  A bath re-glazing company will be one of the first local companies brought to the Cape consumer court.

The Western Cape Consumer Affairs Tribunal will be chaired by Advocate Robert Vincent, with Advocate Mandla Mdludlu, Herman Wessels, Jacki Lange, Theo Burrows, and Selby Tindleni as further members of the Consumer Tribunal, reports Bolander. Complaining consumers will be represented by an attorney of the Office of the Consumer Protector, while companies can appoint their own lawyers.

The shortage of funding for the National Consumer Commission may result in a four month closure of its call centre, writes Business Report, given the vast shortage of staff.  Of the 28000 complaints it receives per month, its five call centre operators can only deal with 8000.  The National Consumer Commissioner Mamodupi Mohlala is asking for a budget of R 134 million, saying that without the funding ‘we are rendered toothless and there will be serious consequences’.  At any moment 70 calls are on hold at the National Consumer Commission call centre.  Fifteen cases have been brought before the National Consumer Tribunal since April last year, when the Consumer Protection Act came into being.  Investigations of the country’s four largest medical aid schemes, cellphone operators (Cell C, Vodacom, MTN and Telkom), pharmaceutical companies, Checkers/Shoprite, JD Group, and the Lewis Group are being undertaken by the National Consumer Commission.

Chris von Ulmenstein, Whale Cottage Portfolio, www.whalecottage.com Twitter:@WhaleCottage

Beluga blogger ban: ‘Blonde’ legal and service reaction

Yesterday Twitter was a-buzz with the news that Beluga restaurant owner Oskar ‘Blonde’ Kotze had banned blogger Shaun Oakes from his restaurant, because his girlfriend had written to him to share their poor service experience at the restaurant with him. It is rare that one sees such a reaction to an incident on Twitter.  A link was provided in a comment on Oakes’ blog to our Sour Service Award given to Beluga, for similar heavy-handed treatment by Kotze, and had a record of more than 1000 unique views yesterday.  The volume of activity about the Beluga ban was reminiscent of the Portofino owner and customer interaction, which was featured on the 2Oceansvibe website almost two years ago.

In short, the service from the waiter was poor and he was cheeky, the couple complained, received the meal and drinks on the house, and the girlfriend sent an e-mail to Kotze, to which Kotze sent an angry reply, all of which Oakes documented in his blogpost. This was Kotze’s ‘Blonde’ (Oskar loves blonds and ‘Blonde’ is the name of his failed restaurant in Gardens) reply: 

“The fact that you swore at my waiter **** is completely unacceptable – I have convinced him to lay a criminal case against you, and the company will back him all the way – its the year 2011 and no one has the right to speak to people the way you did – even your mail below is degrading and condescending. From my side, I am sorry that I was not here, I would have chased you out of my restaurant if I was. As to your personality, lack of manners and general attitude to life I will refrain from commenting – the fact that you even have the audacity to contact me and threaten me after what you did – seriously, wow, what a joke.  This will be the last communication that you will receive from me – I have asked ***** to provide me with your ID number so that we can use that for the criminal case.  Obviously I never want you to come close to any of my businesses ever again – and if your friends condone the way to deal with people, and you convince them not to come to my restaurants, well then that will also be ok”.

Beluga is completely out of line in its reaction to Oakes and his girlfriend:

*   The restaurant has lost not just one couple as clients, but possibly hundreds too, if the more than hundred comments posted to Oakes’ blogpost is anything to go by, the majority of commenters disparaging the poor service and poor quality food at the restaurant.  Very few positive comments were seen to be in support of Beluga.  Capetonians who had not been to Beluga even wrote that they would not try it out, because of Kotze’s action.

*   There is no legal action that Beluga’s waiter can take against Oakes, as he and his girlfriend have not contravened any law

*   Beluga’s action is illegal relative to the new Consumer Protection Act, which does not allow one to discriminate against customers in any form

*   Beluga’s action goes against all norms of customer service.  Yesterday we wrote about a new initiative of the Department of Tourism to introduce a National Service Excellence standard for the tourism industry, which would include restaurants, and it contained a service standard of : Service: should be friendly, professional, guest focused and driven, and offer an effective service recovery”, none of which is reflected in Kotze’s action!

Oakes could lay a charge against Beluga for discrimination against him as a customer with the National Consumer Commission, as well as the Western Cape Consumer Protector, that is if he would ever want to return to Beluga.  The treatment we received from Kotze, in sending the police to evict me from the restaurant as an invited guest due to giving sister restaurant Sevruga a Sour Service Award, and other feedback I have heard from past staff, makes one wonder why action has not been taken against Beluga and its owner!  The only winner in the Beluga blogger ban is Oakes, whom most other bloggers had not heard of before, but whose blog will have achieved a record number of hits yesterday, and who has become one of the best-known bloggers in Cape Town overnight.

Chris von Ulmenstein, Whale Cottage Portfolio: www.whalecottage.com Twitter:@WhaleCottage

Consumer Protection Act no joke, affects every business from 1 April

It is surprising how little has been written about the new Consumer Protection Act No 68 of 2008, which comes into operation on 1 April.   It gives tremendous power to consumers in their dealings with businesses, and will put every business on its toes, the punitive fines of R1 million or more being a strong motivator.

The Act itself runs to just under 100 pages, and whilst written to be understood, it is a volume of information to comprehend.  We bought the book written by Advocate Neville Melville, ‘The Consumer Protection Act Made Easy’, to guide us in evaluating our business in terms of compliance with the new Act.   It is frustrating that there are many grey areas, as the author had to write the book as broadly as possible, to be applicable to every South African business and industry.   I have written this blogpost with a focus on how the new Act will affect the hospitality industry, not as an expert by any means, as an hospitality business owner.   Accommodation provision is most specifically identified as a type of Service covered by the Act, whereas restaurants are not mentioned as such, but the Act applies to the provider of “Goods”, which includes anything “marketed for human consumption”.   Any contracts entered into before 1 April 2011 are excluded from the provisions of the Act.

The Act is introduced as follows: “To promote a fair, accessible and sustainable marketplace for consumer products and services and for that purpose to establish national norms and standards relating to consumer protection, to provide for improved standards of consumer information, to prohibit certain unfair marketing and business practices, to promote responsible consumer behaviour, to promote a consistent legislative and enforcement framework relating to consumer transactions and agreements, to establish the National Consumer Commission…”. 

It has been designed with the express purpose to protect the poor, and vulnerable and historically disadvantaged consumers, and to ‘promote their full participation as consumers’.  It also aims to apply ‘internationally recognised customer rights’, and seeks to ensure transparent ‘redress’ for consumers subjected to ‘abuse or exploitation in the marketplace’.  From a consumer perspective, it will certainly lead to improved customer service and better quality products, as complaints about service and product quality, as incorporated by the Act, can be taken to the newly established National Consumer Commission.   The penalties that businesses can face are R1 million or 10 % of the annual turnover, whichever is the higher figure.   Advocate Melville advises that businesses must ensure that they have sufficient public liability insurance.  

The Consumer Protection Act ascribes eight rights to consumers:

!.   The Right of Equality

     A business may not exclude or unfairly discriminate against any person, or category of persons, prioritise one set of persons over another, or charge certain types of persons more than another.  This raises an important issue about the “Right of Admission” signs in hotels and restaurants.  Le Quartier Français in Franschhoek, in banning patrons from its establishments, may fall foul of the new Act on this point.  

One may not contract with a minor, or with mentally challenged persons. 

2.   The Right to Privacy

   Consumers have the right to reject or block unwanted direct marketing or any other communication via e-mail, telephone and sms.  Allowable contact times for direct marketing may be specified in future.   Newsletters, for example, must have an ‘unsubscribe’ option, to allow recipients the right to not receive them in future, especially if they are deemed to be for ‘direct marketing’ purposes. 

3.   The Right to Choose

Products may not be bundled together with another product or service linked to it, and therefore a supplier or retailer cannot make it mandatory to buy another (possibly unwanted) product as part of a package.   Consumers also have the right to ‘examine goods’, yet cannot be held liable for damage in doing so, a bizarre ruling – however ‘gross negligence, recklessness, malicious behaviour or criminal conduct of the consumer’ is chargeable. 

By agreement, the consumer and supplier can agree how, when and by whom the product or service will be delivered.  If it is not specified, it is implicit that the supplier must deliver the product within a reasonable time period.   The consumer has the right to check the goods on delivery, to ascertain whether they meet the specifications of the order.   

4.   The Right to Disclosure

     All documentation must be written in plain and understandable language (the tenancy clause in the Taj Cape Town ‘legal document’ when one checks in will not meet this criterion in the Act!).  The advertised or marked price is the one that must be honoured, even if it is an error.   A brand name or trade mark must not attempt to mislead consumers.  “Grey market goods” must be identified by the sellers as such.  Important to note is that a ‘written record of the transaction’ must be provided, and must contain the following prescribed information:

*   Supplier’s full registered business name and VAT registration number

*   Address

*   Date of transaction (could be two dates for accommodation establishments, if a deposit is taken to make the booking.  The transaction date will differ from the actual accommodation dates, so there could be three sets of dates)

*   Description of goods and services provided

*   The unit price

*   The quantity supplied

*   The total price before tax

*   The VAT amount – few establishments separate this amount, as all transactions are VAT inclusive

*   The total price. 

The right to disclosure also would include information about anything that can affect the consumer’s use of the product, in containing potentially hazardous or harmful ingredients (e.g. Reuben’s at One&Only Cape Town correctly specifies which of its dishes contain nuts, alcohol, and pork).

5.   The Right to Responsible and Fair Marketing

     Marketing must be honest.   One may not over-promise, exaggerate, mislead or make false claims, so as to lead the consumer to have a different expectation.  One must honour one’s commitment to have a specified product or service available on the date/time that was agreed.  Restaurants, for example, may not claim that their dishes contain ingredients that they do not, or that they are imported when they are sourced locally.  Advertising must realistically portray the benefits of the product or service.  

Loyalty programs are specifically mentioned, and the ruling is that the promised reward must be available to the consumer.  The communication of how the loyalty programme works must be clear. 

6.   The Right to Fair and Honest Dealing 

The Act uses the word ‘unconscionable’, a complex word Melville writes, given that the Act itself calls for ‘plain language’ in all dealings with the consumer!  This clause calls for positive conduct with the consumer, and does not allow a supplier to use ‘undue influence, pressure, duress or harassment, unfair tactics or any similar conduct’ in getting payment due to the supplier, or goods returned.   As a hospitality supplier, it would be great if the Act protected suppliers against such abuse and blackmail too!

The supplier may not withhold material facts about the product or service (e.g. renovations taking place at a guest house), nor imply a benefit of the product or service that does not exist, or fail to correct a misunderstanding that the consumer expresses about the product or the service.   Reasonable availability of the product or service must be accurately communicated, as must be the availability of parts for repairs.   Pyramid schemes are expressly forbidden. 

Overbooking, with the express purpose of taking more bookings than one has the capacity for, based on the knowledge that not all booked customers will arrive (e.g. airlines, hotels) is no longer allowed, as one must have the service/product available if it has been booked.   Any such overbooking and therefore inability to honour a booking calls for a refund of the cost of the booked service as well as the costs involved in cancelling the booked service (e.g. loss of business suffered by the customer), which could become very costly for the supplier!   However, the supplier may make an alternative arrangement on behalf of the customer, and that customer is reasonably expected to accept the alternative arrangement.

7.   The Right to fair, just and reasonable terms and conditions

       The Act regulates ‘agreements’ (not calling them contracts) between suppliers and consumers.  One may not contract with minors, and those that are mentally unfit.   Information in the agreement must be in plain understandable language.  Repairs must be pre-quoted.    Some agreements will be specified by the Minister to be in writing.  The sales record must contain the required information (as specified above).  Any risk to the consumer that may lead to serious injury or death must be highlighted (does a pool count?).  Any other potential risks associated with the product or the service must be highlighted.   A ‘fair’ price must be offered, and the terms must be ‘fair’ and reasonable, although ‘fair’ is not defined.  “Unfair” is however defined as agreements which are one-sided in benefit to a party other than the consumer, or are based on misleading information.  No clause in an agreement can be in contravention, or cancel any provisions,  of the Consumer Protection Act.   PIN codes and ID books may not be kept by the supplier, and only copies may be made of the ID book and the PIN code used for a transaction.

A contentious provision for businesses is the right to a cooling-off period, which allows the consumer to return bought goods within five days of purchase, and must be refunded in full within 15 business days.  The notice of cancellation must be in writing.  Melville uses the word ‘good’, and not ‘service’, so it is not clear if this applies to bookings made for services such as accommodation, for which a 50 % deposit is likely to have been taken.   Even more uncertain is how the provision that a consumer can return a ‘good’ if he/she did not have a chance to see the product beforehand, but only of it is not hazardous to the public health (which would exclude food and beverages) or if it has been tampered with.  Such a clause could apply to accommodation too, being an unsighted purchase (but is defined as a ‘service’), so this may not be applicable.   

Consumers have the right to cancel an advance booking or order, ‘but may be liable for a charge for doing so’.   A supplier may “require payment of a reasonable deposit in advance and impose a reasonable charge for the cancellation” . The ‘reasonable’ is not defined, but Melville writes that it should be decided on the basis of the following:

   *   The nature of the products and services

   *   the length of notice of the cancellation

   *   the “reasonable potential for the service provider, acting diligently, to find an alternative consumer between the time of receiving the cancellation notice and the time of the cancelled reservation”. 

   *   The general practice of the industry concerned

In the case of the death or hospitalisation of the person making the booking, the deposit paid must be refunded in full, but this does not apply to a family member’s death or hospitalisation. 

Should a supplier close a service facility (say a guest house which decides to close over winter), 40 business days’ notice must be given to the customer, and the deposit payment must be refunded within 5 business days after the service facility has closed. 

8.  The Right to fair value, good quality and safety

Any good, or element within a good, that can cause harm, injury or potential death to the consumer must be spelt out to the consumer.   These risks can include those that the consumer may not ordinarily have expected, especially those which can lead to serious injury or death.   At Whale Cottage we have evaluated our operation relative to this clause, and have changed our breakfast menu to highlight all nut-based cereals, and have changed the content of one of our Huguenot Fine Chocolates’ turn-down chocolates, which previously was a hazelnut praline.

Products that are available to or sold to the consumer that may contain hazardous substances must have the warning and description on the pack or available separately (e.g. we stock Tabard insect spray in our guest bedrooms, with instructions and health warnings on the pack). 

The Act calls for compensation to consumers if the products bought caused harm to themselves and/or their property.  Not only the direct supplier is liable, but also the importer, the retailer, the manufacturer, the distributor, and the installer can be sued for damages within a three year period from the date of the loss or damage.

A further requirement is that products and services should be of a quality that consumers are ‘generally entitled to expect’.  It states that industry association codes and practice would guide what this reasonable level of quality would be.  For the accommodation industry, the Tourism Grading Council guidelines and requirements probably would be a good quality guide.  Timing of the delivery of the service is once again highlighted as having to be ‘reasonable’, and suppliers must give consumers ‘reasonable’ notice (timing undefined) of ‘unavoidable’ delays.   A good requirement, for anyone dealing with builders or repairmen, is that the property must be left in the condition it was when they first started their work.  Suppliers of repair services must safeguard the consumers’ goods in their care, and this includes deposits that may have been paid.

Products bought must deliver on what they are expected to perform.  They must be in good working condition and free of defects.  So, for example, a toaster used in a guest house can not be expected to perform the same service compared to one used domestically, and the consumer must declare the usage, so that he/she can make the most suitable purchase.  If the product does not perform, the consumer can return the product within a six month period, and can demand a new replacement product, money back, or repair of the item.   The consumer has the right of choice in this regard, not the supplier.  This places a responsibility on suppliers to stock enough of any products to be able to replace products, especially if the items might be discontinued!   Repaired goods have a three month warranty period through the Act.   No ‘voetstoots’ clause applies for any purchase any longer.

The Consumer Protection Act is a lengthy piece of legislation, and each business is advised to check its practices and communication to customers, to evaluate its compliance with the new Act.  It could become an explosive minefield if opportunistic consumers were to try to exploit the provisions of the Act, especially for the service industry, where things are not always black or white.  However, the protection it affords consumers is welcomed, and the improvement in the level of service and quality of products one can expect as a result is too.

POSTSCRIPT 26/5:  This afternoon I attended a Consumer Protection Act workshop at the Radisson Blu hotel, organised jointly by Cape Town Tourism and FEDHASA Cape.  The first part was presented by a lawyer from Webber Wentzel, the most boring speaker, who quoted clauses from the Act and had assumed that the audience knew nothing at all about the Act.  He had misread his audience completely.  He was followed by FEDHASA legal consultant Peter Cumberlege, who was far more entertaining as well as informative, but with strong views that FEDHASA Cape appears to rely on, without robust debate!  The key points made:

*   nothing in the Act is new – we all treat guests fairly

*   the most contentious statement was that the hospitality industry should NOT have a standardised cancellation and refund policy – all establishments are unique.  However, the Chairman of the National Consumer Tribunal said in Franschhoek recently that the hospitality industry should form an industry body, and should standardise its cancellation policy, given that the Act regularly refers to standard industry practice.

*   Establishments must try to resell cancelled rooms, and should try not to charge for these.  If there is a charge, it should be to recover expenses, and not a full room rate, especially if the establishment is not fully booked on the day of the cancellation- this is a contentious view of Cumberlege, and many would disagree with him.

*   SQ prices must come off restaurant menus

*   Invoices can no longer be handwritten, given the invoice requirements in the Act

*   All websites and brochures should be checked for accuracy of claims.  Avoid overclaims.

*   If one overbooks one’s accommodation, the guest must be given equal or better accommodation, or one must refund: interest on money held plus monies paid plus cost of cancellation to the client

*   One is responsible for guests’ belongings on one’s property

*   Disclaimers and waivers are now meaningless in contracts

*   Sites representing a number of establishments must state the rate of the establishment and the percentage commission that they have added = full disclosure

The Consumer Protection Act Made Easy, Adv NJ Melville, 2010.  Exclusive Books.

Chris von Ulmenstein, Whale Cottage Portfolio: www.whalecottage.com  Twitter: @WhaleCottage