Mr D Ignores Full Refund Request and Issues Unexplained 50% Wallet Credit

UPDATE – 19 OCTOBER 2026: MR D'S RESPONSE TO MY ESCALATION REQUEST Following my original complaint and Mr D's decision to refund only 50% of my R938.50 food order, I formally disputed their decision and requested escalation to a senior manager. I have since received two further responses, and I find their explanation extremely concerning. 1. MY COMPLAINT WAS NEVER ABOUT THE DELIVERY Mr D now states that its policy allows only a 50% refund when food quality is unsatisfactory but the order was delivered in full and on time. I find this reasoning extraordinary. My complaint has NEVER been about the delivery, the delivery time, the delivery driver or whether the order arrived. I have repeatedly made that distinction clear. The delivery driver performed his duties professionally, and I specifically requested that his R46.93 tip remain untouched. MY COMPLAINT IS ABOUT THE UNACCEPTABLE QUALITY OF THE FOOD PREPARED AND SUPPLIED BY HENNIES MOSSEL BAY. The food was excessively hard, dry and disappointing in taste and texture. What relevance does an on-time delivery have to whether the food inside the packaging was of acceptable quality? Delivering unacceptable food on time does not somehow make the food acceptable. 2. MR D'S EXPLANATION FOR REFUSING A FULL REFUND Mr D further stated that it could not approve a full refund because the business would incur the entire loss. I find this explanation particularly troubling. Why should the customer be expected to absorb 50% of the financial loss when the complaint concerns the quality of the goods supplied? A company's internal refund policy should not simply be used to dismiss legitimate concerns about unacceptable product quality. I am requesting that Mr D identify the specific policy provision relied upon and explain how it applies to my complaint, including how it complies with applicable consumer protection requirements. 3. WHY DID PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION ONLY FOLLOW MY ESCALATION REQUEST? My initial response from Mr D was brief, generic and failed to address the detailed circumstances and evidence I had provided. It offered a 50% wallet credit and a R20 coupon, without properly explaining the decision. Only after I challenged that response and requested escalation to management did I receive a more detailed acknowledgement of my daughter's and my shared birthday celebration, the disappointment caused and the seriousness of my complaint. Why was this level of attention and consideration not provided in the first response? Customers should not have to repeatedly challenge inadequate responses or request management intervention before receiving meaningful communication. 4. WHY WAS I ONLY INFORMED LATER THAT HENNIES HAD BEEN CONTACTED? Mr D has now stated that my complaint and supporting evidence have been escalated to Hennies management. If that is the case, why was this not communicated in the original response? Why was I not informed that the restaurant would be approached or that my evidence would be reviewed? I should not have to repeatedly request basic information about the handling of my complaint. I also request confirmation of when Hennies was contacted and whether management has responded. 5. MY REFUND DISPUTE REMAINS UNRESOLVED Mr D has explained that its wallet system allows the bank-card portion of a refund to be paid out, while voucher credit remains in the wallet. However, I still have not received a clear breakdown showing how my R469.25 partial credit was allocated between my original R500 birthday gift voucher and my bank-card payment. More importantly, I continue to dispute the outstanding R469.25. I do not accept a 50% refund and a R20 promotional coupon as a satisfactory resolution. I expect proper management review, a clear explanation of the refund decision and a fair resolution based on the actual complaint: the quality of the food supplied. The fact that food was delivered in full and on time does not answer a complaint about the food itself.