Shopping for Christmas? …Know your rights – Competition & Consumer Affairs Commission

Nov 17, 2013 News

---

 

 
In light of the upcoming Christmas season, the Competition and Consumer Affairs Commission (CCAC) has embarked on its most recent campaign which involves notifying commercial entities in Georgetown, the country’s primary marketplace, of their legal obligations under the Consumer Affairs Act (CAA).
Clifford Zammett, CCAC’s Consumer Affairs Officer informed that the Commission is currently in the process of dispatching an excerpt of the Act to every commercial entity along Regent Street. The excerpt includes citations of sections of the Act that the Commission identified as being most commonly breached, based on complaints of consumers; including the relevant sanctions that will be applied for non-compliance of the law.

The excerpt, seen by Kaieteur News, includes citations directed to misleading notices and statements in stores, the provision of warranties, the provision of refund on goods, the process involved in the return and exchange of goods and the return of defective goods, among others.
Zammett said that the exercise came about after it was found that many businesses are in breach of the Act. As such, he said that the Commission saw it necessary, especially in light of the ensuing ‘Christmas season’, to inform and remind business owners of what is expected of them as well as to remind them of rights that are afforded to consumers.
Haroon Khan, an Economist at CCAC, also present during the discussions, said that this is in fact acting in harmony with the two-fold mandate of the Commission which is to protect consumers from exploitation as well as to examine and advise businesses, equipping them to protect themselves while adhering to the regulations set out in the law.
On the matters of returns, exchanges and refunds – notably some of the most prominently breached sections of the law – Zammett said that the Act sets out specific guidelines to deal with these accordingly.
He said that notices and bills in stores which declare items to be non-exchangeable and non-returnable are absolutely prohibited. Section 24 (1) of the Act says, “A supplier shall not post notices stating that goods are not returnable [or] that no refunds will be given for goods returned.”
“What they should have now is an exchange policy. That is, the law states that if you buy a product and for some reason need to return it, you can do so within seven days, given that the product has not been worn, tampered with or damaged in any way,” the Consumer Affairs Officer explained.
According to Section 21 (1) of the Act, “A consumer may return goods if the purpose for which the goods were bought or intended to be used have changed or ceased to exist immediately after goods were bought”.
The law states that in this case, the goods should be returned within seven days from the date of purchase; it must not have been used, tampered with or treated in a manner to cause damage and be returned in its original package.
Having returned the item, it is stated in the Act that the consumer may elect to make a purchase of other goods of same value in lieu of a refund.
However, it was explained that in the event the consumer requests a refund rather than an exchange, the business is obliged to provide such.
According to Zammett, the law does not compel a consumer to take another product in exchange, as so many businesses demand.
He said however, that if the consumer prefers a refund, the business entity is allowed to deduct ten per cent of the cost of the item to go towards restocking fees.
According to Section 21 (6), “the supplier may charge a restocking fee not exceeding ten per cent of the purchase price of the returned goods.”
Similarly, on the matter of warranties, Khan noted that every customer must be provided with a warranty of at least six months where there is no manufacturer’s warranty; or up to one year where a manufacturer’s warranty is present.
He noted that while some businesses do provide consumers with warranties, the time period permitted is often times insufficient. He mentioned instances where consumers are given a 30 days warranty period instead of the six months period mandated by law.
Khan referred to Section 22 (1) of the Act which states that in the event a supplier sells goods to a consumer and the goods “fail to provide to the consumer the uninterrupted enjoyment for which they were intended”, once the item has been returned, “the supplier shall at no cost to the consumer replace the goods within fourteen days of the goods being returned to the supplier, repair the goods or return the receipted payment for the goods (a complete refund).
Khan noted that failure to comply with the legislation can result in a fine of “not less than $20,000 or more than $1 Million”. He said that the law even includes imprisonment of up to one year.
On this note, the Economist urged that business entities do their best to comply with the given regulations as it is in their best interest.
“We have found that a business taking a proactive approach to the adherence of the Act will be profitable in the long run.”
He said that upon completion of covering the Regent Street area, the Commission will take a decision to identify another area to distribute excerpts.

---

---