Tevo ******* On Bennet Read vacuum

I am quite disappointed with Tevo customer service, you claim you contacted me but I have no evidence of such calls on my True Caller history, even if you called to no success Tevo could have sent an SMS, for a call back or something ( I am mostly in court or meetings during the day, I can't always take calls but I do return miscalls as I work with clients as well, hence I also have true caller). You further send the email to an incorrect email address. As a result I had to personally go to Game after 1 month for feedback on the appliance. Tevo failed to exhaust every option to ensure the customer is reached timeously. Was this was a ploy to ensure that I don't exercise my right in terms of Comsumer Protection Act, ( return of a faulty product within 6 months) and try and drag this out of warranty?

This is ********* and disgusting conduct on Tevo side.

Background.

When I purchased this vacuum in December it was the only one left in the shop and the box was a tempered with, I asked if there was anything wrong with it, the sales person said no all was order. I have never had issue with Game before hence this did not raise any concerns.

Personal information handling in terms of POPIA

My cellphone number was printed on the box of the vacuum which means anyone who should not have been privy to my number was, such as a cleaner at Game/ Tevo store, security guards, passerby etc. This in breach of the POPIA. only the name and surname of the client must be printed in such places, the rest of the information must be printed on accompanying documentation, e.g documents a customer will sign when collecting the item.

The Box

When I submitted the vacuum at game the box was in the shape I bought the vacuum in ( tampered as averred above) not torn and taped to try and secure the vacuum. the vacuum was mishandled which might have led to damaging the vacuum. ( I have not assessed this as I returned the vacuum to Game nor do I have the know how.

The Tech Report.

Your tech team claims that the vacuum was broken due to negligence ( negligence definition failure to take proper care over something) in accordance with RSA the onus of proof on negligence claim is borne by the accuser. assume you will be able to demonstrate that the vacuum was use for another purpose other than to vacuum dust which its function, as this is the only way you can qualify the negligence claim, hence quantify your claim.

My dispute The sole purpose of this vacuum cleaner is to collect or suck dust. How can the purpose of the item be reason it breaks. Your claim fails the reasonability test of fault and negligence if the report stated that the vacuum was damaged by water, paper, plastics or its cracked due to mishandling etc I would surely understand. My claim is that the product was faulty and defective when it was purchased hence the breakdown within a 6 month period , as a vacuum cleaner cannot be broken by dust that its JOB! this means that the vacuum was never suitable to perform its function which is to collect dust rendering it defective and faulty the vacuum was never suitable for its purpose. Furthermore, the vacuum was only utilised for had wood flooring and tiles ( these hard surfaces do not contain a lot of dust) , the reason for this was that it performed poorly when it came to vacuuming area rugs when I tried it in December. ( I have a separate vacuum which I purchased prior to this one which 2 years old and still in perfect condition), I enquired about the poor performance on rugs I was advised that cordless vacuum cleaners, are not that powerful in this area, I just assumed I made a terrible purchase hence I only used it with hardwood floors, which was also not so great a broom did a better job, until the suction worsened and started making a loud noise, then I tool it back to Game in May.

Consumer Protection Act

regards Lindeni Ndlovu