Redress for consumers in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008: The watchdog’s failure to support an accredited industry ombud - alternative suggestions

M. du Plessis
{"title":"Redress for consumers in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008: The watchdog’s failure to support an accredited industry ombud - alternative suggestions","authors":"M. du Plessis","doi":"10.47348/slr/2022/i2a4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this contribution, available avenues of consumer redress in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (“CPA”) are discussed. The majority of complaints heard by the courts and the National Consumer Tribunal (“NCT”) regarding defective goods entail second-hand cars. These include cases of suppliers’ contempt of findings by the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (“MIOSA”) in terms of section 70(3)(a), as well as instances where the MIOSA terminates the section 70(2) process and the consumer approaches the National Consumer Commission (“NCC”) in terms of section 71. Processes in the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 are not clearly delineated, leading to unnecessary cross-referrals between different redress mechanisms, such as the MIOSA, the NCC and provincial protection authorities and consumer courts. The NCC’s approach, which is not supported by the CPA, is to avoid investigating individual consumer complaints. The NCC consistently refers matters back to either a different or the same alternative dispute resolution agent, in conflict with the caveat in section 72(1)(b). Many NCT decisions indicate that the NCC issues notices of non-referral without due justification, thereby compelling consumers to approach the NCT, if permitted, or consumer courts for relief. The interplay between the MIOSA, the NCC and provincial consumer courts is discussed, the effect of which frustrates the aim of effective and efficient redress and enforcement in terms of the CPA. An alternative route to ensure the enforcement of consumer rights and redress is suggested, in terms of which the NCC should focus on the outcome of the investigation and use section 73(1)(c)(iii) to refer matters to consumer courts in terms of section 73(2). The advantages of such referrals are indicated. It is shown that the successful outcome of consumers’ claims, where the supplier engages in prohibited conduct, depends on the appropriate application of the relevant sections of the CPA.","PeriodicalId":325707,"journal":{"name":"Stellenbosch Law Review","volume":"17 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stellenbosch Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/slr/2022/i2a4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this contribution, available avenues of consumer redress in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (“CPA”) are discussed. The majority of complaints heard by the courts and the National Consumer Tribunal (“NCT”) regarding defective goods entail second-hand cars. These include cases of suppliers’ contempt of findings by the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (“MIOSA”) in terms of section 70(3)(a), as well as instances where the MIOSA terminates the section 70(2) process and the consumer approaches the National Consumer Commission (“NCC”) in terms of section 71. Processes in the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 are not clearly delineated, leading to unnecessary cross-referrals between different redress mechanisms, such as the MIOSA, the NCC and provincial protection authorities and consumer courts. The NCC’s approach, which is not supported by the CPA, is to avoid investigating individual consumer complaints. The NCC consistently refers matters back to either a different or the same alternative dispute resolution agent, in conflict with the caveat in section 72(1)(b). Many NCT decisions indicate that the NCC issues notices of non-referral without due justification, thereby compelling consumers to approach the NCT, if permitted, or consumer courts for relief. The interplay between the MIOSA, the NCC and provincial consumer courts is discussed, the effect of which frustrates the aim of effective and efficient redress and enforcement in terms of the CPA. An alternative route to ensure the enforcement of consumer rights and redress is suggested, in terms of which the NCC should focus on the outcome of the investigation and use section 73(1)(c)(iii) to refer matters to consumer courts in terms of section 73(2). The advantages of such referrals are indicated. It is shown that the successful outcome of consumers’ claims, where the supplier engages in prohibited conduct, depends on the appropriate application of the relevant sections of the CPA.
根据2008年第68号消费者保护法对消费者的补救:监管机构未能支持一个经认可的行业法庭——替代建议
在这篇文章中,根据2008年第68号消费者保护法(“CPA”),讨论了消费者补救的可用途径。法院和国家消费者法庭(“NCT”)审理的大多数关于有缺陷商品的投诉涉及二手车。这些案例包括供应商藐视南非汽车工业监察员(“MIOSA”)根据第70(3)(a)条作出的调查结果的案例,以及MIOSA终止第70(2)条流程,消费者根据第71条向国家消费者委员会(“NCC”)提出申诉的案例。2008年第68号消费者保护法中的程序没有明确界定,导致不同补救机制之间不必要的交叉推荐,例如MIOSA, NCC和省级保护当局以及消费者法院。NCC的做法是避免调查个人消费者投诉,而CPA并不支持这种做法。NCC始终将事项提交给不同或相同的替代争议解决代理,这与第72(1)(b)条中的警告相冲突。许多NCT的决定表明,NCC在没有正当理由的情况下发出不转诉通知,从而迫使消费者在允许的情况下向NCT或消费者法院寻求救济。讨论了MIOSA, NCC和省级消费者法院之间的相互作用,其影响阻碍了在CPA方面有效和高效的补救和执行目标。建议采用另一种途径来确保消费者权利和补救的执行,即NCC应将重点放在调查结果上,并使用第73(1)(c)(iii)条,根据第73(2)条将事项提交给消费者法院。指出了这种转诊的优点。结果表明,当供应商从事被禁止的行为时,消费者索赔的成功结果取决于CPA相关章节的适当适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信