1 reviews | Active since Oct 2022
Section 56 CPA Refund Only Processed After CGSO Intervention
I purchased an Epson printer from Game Kenilworth which became defective within six months. Epson confirmed in writing that the printer was faulty and unrepairable. In terms of Section 56 of the Consumer Protection Act, a consumer is entitled to a refund, replacement, or repair for defective goods within six months of purchase. Despite this being a clear CPA case and submitting the full email trail with Epson, there were prolonged delays and no acknowledgment from the Sales Manager, Shameemah. The matter escalated when Fernell Jansen of Walmart informed the CGSO that I had been contacted and had agreed to collect my refund. This was not accurate, as no such communication took place. I had to formally clarify this with the Ombudsman. Only after the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud became actively involved was the refund processed. While the refund has now been received, it required external intervention to enforce what should have been a straightforward Section 56 CPA remedy. I hope internal escalation and communication processes are improved to prevent similar experiences for other customers.
For accuracy, this matter has already been resolved and I have received my refund.
However, it is important to clarify that the refund was only processed after escalation to the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud (CGSO), and after I had to formally correct incorrect information provided to the Ombudsman regarding alleged contact about refund collection.
My review is not about a defective product — defects can occur. It concerns the prolonged lack of acknowledgment from store management, the absence of clear written communication despite repeated follow-ups, and the need for ombudsman intervention to enforce what is a straightforward Section 56 Consumer Protection Act remedy.
Suggesting that the matter is simply “being handled” does not accurately reflect the sequence of events that led to resolution.
I trust this provides proper context for other customers.
For accuracy, this matter has already been resolved and I have received my refund.
However, it is important to clarify that the refund was only processed after escalation to the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud (CGSO), and after I had to formally correct incorrect information provided to the Ombudsman regarding alleged contact about refund collection.
My review is not about a defective product — defects can occur. It concerns the prolonged lack of acknowledgment from store management, the absence of clear written communication despite repeated follow-ups, and the need for ombudsman intervention to enforce what is a straightforward Section 56 Consumer Protection Act remedy.
Suggesting that the matter is simply “being handled” does not accurately reflect the sequence of events that led to resolution.
I trust this provides proper context for other customers.