PUBLIC CONSUMER COMPLAINT TO MASSMART – BUILDERS WAREHOUSE GEZINA, TWO IDENTICAL DEFECTIVE RYOBI GG-100 GLUE GUNS AND A “GOOD FAITH” EXPLANATION THAT MAKES NO SENSE

PUBLIC CONSUMER COMPLAINT TO MASSMART – BUILDERS WAREHOUSE GEZINA, TWO IDENTICAL DEFECTIVE RYOBI GG-100 GLUE GUNS AND A “GOOD FAITH” EXPLANATION THAT MAKES NO SENSE

I am placing this complaint publicly before Massmart because Builders forms part of the Massmart group, and what has happened at Builders Warehouse Gezina, 352 Steve Biko Road, Pretoria, now requires intervention above store level.

This is not a complaint about a consumer changing his mind about a product. It concerns two defective examples of exactly the same product, purchased from the same Builders Warehouse store, both within the six-month period provided for in the Consumer Protection Act.

The product is the RYOBI GLUE GUN 80W GG-100, barcode/SKU ***.

The first unit was purchased on 29 March 2026 for R134 after discount. It worked for approximately three and a half to four months and then developed an electrical fault. When plugged in it began tripping the electricity and became unusable. Builders' own faulty-product ticket records the fault in plain language: “it trips power and it is not working.” That unit is recorded under Repair Ref REP-B1R4EFMHU88 and serial number ***.

The second unit was purchased on 17 September 2026 for R169. It is exactly the same RYOBI GG-100, exactly the same SKU ***, and it also failed. That unit was accepted back and the receipt records that it was refunded.

I subsequently spoke to Stefan Haywood from Builders. The call is recorded. His explanation for the different treatment of these two identical defective products was, in substance, that accommodating the one unit was a “sign of good faith.”

That explanation is extraordinary.

A consumer right created by legislation is not an act of charity, goodwill or corporate generosity.

Both products are the same RYOBI GG-100. Both were purchased from Builders Warehouse Gezina. Both failed. Both were returned within six months of purchase. Yet one was dealt with immediately while the other was pushed into a repair process against my election of a refund.

Massmart should explain publicly how the same retailer can apply two materially different remedies to two identical defective products and then describe the favourable treatment of one of them as “good faith.”

Section 56 of the Consumer Protection Act does not say that a retailer may decide whether it feels generous enough to accommodate a consumer. Where the statutory requirements are met within six months, the consumer directs whether the failed, unsafe or defective goods are repaired, replaced or refunded.

For absolute fairness, I want to place something else on record. I have no complaint against Assistant Manager Rafa at Builders Warehouse Gezina. Rafa has repeatedly been professional, helpful and willing to go beyond what one normally expects at a retail counter. This complaint is not directed at him. It is directed at the inconsistent decision-making and the explanation subsequently given by Stefan Haywood.

The monetary value of these glue guns is almost irrelevant now. The principle is not.

Massmart should be concerned that a product sold through one of its major retail businesses failed twice, that one of those failures involved an electrical appliance tripping the power supply, and that the consumer was then apparently expected to regard compliance in relation to one defective unit as a favour.

I have the receipts. I have the faulty-product documentation. I have the repair reference. I have the exact model and SKU. I have the recorded telephone call. There is nothing hidden here.

Consumers have every right to complain publicly about their experiences with goods and retailers, particularly where those complaints are supported by documentary evidence. Consumer protection legislation exists precisely because the individual consumer should not have to simply accept whatever internal policy or explanation a large retailer chooses to apply.

My position is simple. I elected a refund in respect of the defective 29 March 2026 unit. I do not consent to Builders substituting a compulsory repair for the statutory remedy I selected.

Massmart now has an opportunity to resolve this properly and to explain why two identical defective products were treated differently.

Until RYOBI and its retailers can provide a proper explanation for two failures of this exact model within months of one another, my advice to consumers based on my documented experience is equally simple: do not buy the RYOBI GG-100 glue gun, SKU ***.