Poor Service Received

I would like to express out utter disappointing service received from both PEP and Vodacom. I am writing this complaint on my fiancé’s behalf. The complaint is regarding a ZTE/Vodafone Smart E8 VFD510 purchased from PEP George (Van Der Stel Square) purchased on 2019/03/08 The device was booked in for repair at PEP on 2019/04/16 with failure reported: Device Heats Up / Battery Life affected Repair details received: ********** 8- ********** 8. IMEI: ********** ********** 5 Note at this point, repair of the 1-month old device was the only option provided by PEP so the booking in of the device was the course of action taken. We are aware that the device was outside of the OBF/DOA period at the time. Upon a follow up made approx. 4 weeks since the phone was booked in for repair, the PEP Store George representative indicated that the phone has not left the store as yet, as the manager forgot to send it off or book collection accordingly. She apologized and indicated that immediate action will be taken to speed up the process. Unfortunately, I cannot confirm the exact date of this incident and correspondence with the store.

Consecutive SMS messages received on 2019/06/03 with the below content extract:

SMS1 Your device has been booked in at VODACOM REPAIRS GEORGE with job number ********** 8. The turnaround time for a warranty repair will be approximate 2-3days

SMS2 Vodacom Repairs job no. ********** 8 has been sent to the Advance Repair Centre for a higher-level repair.

SMS3 Vodacom Repairs job no. ********** 8 has been exchanged and is ready for collection. Please bring along your ID/Drivers licence for verification purposes.

My fiancé went to PEP on 2019/06/04 to collect the device. Upon receipt she was informed by the PEP Stores representative that the device box was from the initial device but that the replacement is a new unit. She accepted the device after signing the release that indicated that the replacement device is an “Exchange” unit ( ********** ) IMEI ********** ********** 3. When she arrived home and showed my the replacement, it was evident that it was indeed not a new unit but rather a refurbished device (appearance/condition of the device similar to her initial device but the *****s have been tightened to the extent that it caused chip marks on the ***** heads)

We took the exchange phone back to PEP on 2019/06/05 and the store representative was not aware that it was a refurbished device. She had us make contact with the local Vodacom Repair Store in George which informed us that the initial device was on route or already delivered to Vodacom H/Q and that they issued the Exchange device from the stock that they received. Presumed that an equal appearance/condition rating was used here to gauge the replacement to be issued.

Vodacom Repairs George then informed us to call Vodacom H/Q which I did on a call placed at 09:10 and spoke to an agent by the name of Nealeni (apologies if spelt incorrectly) on number ********** . We discussed the exchange process which took place and indicated that these phones (make/model) are not repaired normally as they are purely swapped out or exchanged once the warranty and fault has been confirmed.

We spoke about the CPA legislation regarding new items and what the legislation indicates: Repair, Replace or Refund She also again then indicated that the exchange unit was issued which is the process/protocol regarding these devices. The issue at hand is that my fiancé was not informed that the replacement device would be a refurbished device. Should she have been given the option to accept a 2nd hand unit or a new device she would have been able to accept a new replacement as her device failed only 1 month and 8 days after purchase. I indicated to the Vodacom agent that the device falls within a CPA replacement period if it could not be repaired to which she rep**** that the device had to be booked in by the end user or the store as a CPA replacement. Why was this never communicated to the end user? Why is this information only made available after research needs to be done to defend one’s own consumer rights? In my opinion, this is a loophole that is surely causing al lot of issues for service providers and retail groups. How can the end user be held responsible for booking in a replacement as that option was not provided by the retailer? The Vodacom agent also indicated that the repair call cannot be reverted or changed to a CPA case as the manufacturer will not allow it. Based on what? The correct information was not provided, whether this is the responsibility of the retailer or the supplier, none of this information is visible on the device warranty or at the retailer. And yet the customer has to suffer not only having the device fail (completely understandable and at no fault of either party as electronics do tend to fail at some point) but not having the use of the device and then only to be told that the device can only be repaired only to receive a 2nd hand already repaired device?

Below is an extract of the Job Card Terms and Conditions received and signed upon booking:

Section 1 iv. : The physical condition of your device is also taken into consideration before any warranty decisions are made for replacement or exchanges, especially within the first six months of the purchase date. The agreed upon device inspection sheet was completed and the warranty was confirmed intact for 24 months for the device. Again, no replacement option provided on this documentation or communicated to the user for a 1-month old device (in the event that a CPA replacement could be logged) Note that this process took 7 weeks. Notably the 4-week delay was on the side of PEP stores which Vodacom Repairs cannot be held liable for and there is no cer*****y when the device arrived at Vodacom Repairs from our knowledge as this was not communicated.

I have read the Terms and Conditions on https://www.vodacom.co.za/vodacom/terms/device-warranty-terms-and-conditions WHAT IS A SWAP/EXCHANGE/REPLACEMENT DEVICE IN THE SERVICE PROCESS? i. A swap process is where there is no repair capability and as such, no repair can be undertaken on a device. The device is then replaced and referred to as a ‘swap/exchange process’. The replacement device is supp**** by the manufacturer. To which I understand and agree.

The device has not been used since receipt on 2019/06/04. We decided to make use of the device as the other phone in use was meant a phone for the shop which runs a POS App Ikokha for debit transactions. The exchange phone was set up on 2019/06/11 with the basic apps not pre-installed on the phone for example Whatsapp. This was done after the phone charged for approx. 9 hours. Again, the same issue occurred where the battery does not last even 5 hours with no use on it. The phone was charged during the night and unplugged at 22:00. The next morning the battery life indicated 25% without any use and all applications closed. The same test done on 2019/06/12 and 2019/06/13 which yielded the same result. So the issue seems to be a manufacturing / hardware performance problem on this specific model which is the cause of even further frustration.

In light of the above, my request is for the TAT regarding the repair and service received during this period be reviewed and a re-consideration be made in terms of a new replacement device to be issued. We will gladly book the device in again for assessment to be done in order to further escalate the current findings to request for a new replacement device.

Please contact me should you have any questions.

Werner Louw