Vodacom Menlyn — Defective 4-Month-Old Device, Refused Replacement, CPA Section 56 Ignored

Title: Vodacom Menlyn — Defective 4-Month-Old Device, Refused Replacement, CPA Section 56 Ignored Body: In January 2026, I upgraded my contract at Vodacom Menlyn and received a Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra. The upgrade itself was already problematic — my device was given to another customer, forcing me to make a second trip from Boksburg to Pretoria. On 8 April 2026, the device failed without warning, losing all 5G connectivity and the ability to receive calls. The device is four months old. When I visited the Menlyn branch, I was offered a generic loan device that could not accommodate my storage needs. No meaningful assistance was provided. I was left to source a replacement at my own cost and inconvenience — despite Vodacom being the party in breach. I formally demanded a replacement in terms of Section 56(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, to which I am entitled within six months of purchase. Vodacom's response has been to redirect me between Head Office and the Menlyn branch in a loop, with neither party taking accountability. I have since been informed that parts for my device are unavailable, making repair timelines indefinite. I do not accept repair as a remedy. I am entitled to a brand-new replacement device. To date, I have received no resolution. I have escalated this matter to the Consumer Goods & Services Ombud, the National Consumer Commission, and ICASA. What I want: A brand-new Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra, same make and specification, delivered within 48 hours — as is my statutory right under the CPA.