Evaluating the role of the National Consumer Commission in ensuring that consumers have access to redress

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Author: Tanya Woker
• Published date: 20 August 2019
• Citation: (2017) 29 SA Merc LJ 1
• Pages: 1-16
• Date: 20 August 2019

Articles

EVALUATING THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL

CONSUMER COMMISSION IN ENSURING

THAT CONSUMERS HAVE ACCESS TO

REDRESS

TANYA WOKER*

Professor of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal (Durban)

Abstract

An important aim of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) is to ensure

that consumers have access to accessible, transparent and eff‌icient

redress. In order to achieve this aim, a number of different dispute

resolution forums have been introduced to assist consumers. Having an

array of different forums for consumers to turn to may theoretically be

very appealing, but in practice the picture is turning out to be quite

different. This article seeks to shed some light on the reasons why

consumers are experiencing such diff‌iculties when it comes to enforcing

their rights under the CPA and it makes some suggestions for improving

the process. The article focuses on the role of the Consumer Commis-

sion because the Commission is primarily responsible for the admini-

stration of the CPA. It is argued that it is necessary for the Commission

to take charge of the dispute resolution process, because whether or not

the CPA succeeds in its aim of ensuring that consumers have access to

redress, rests largely on the role undertaken by the Commission in this

process.

Keywords: consumers; redress; alternative dispute resolution; Consumer

Commission; National Consumer Tribunal; ombuds.

*BA LLB LLM (Natal) PhD (Rhodes). This article is based on a paper that I presented at the

International Consumer Law Conference, University of Pretoria, 20–22 September 2016. I am

indebted to the participants for their comments made during and after the conference, in

particular Paul Esselaar, Elizabeth de Stadler, Stephen Newman and Advocate Neville

Melville, the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud.

1

(2017) 29 SA Merc LJ 1

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

I INTRODUCTION

In a previous article

1

I discussed the role of the different dispute

resolution forums which have been established or recognised by the

National Credit Act

2

(NCA) and the Consumer Protection Act

3

(CPA)

to ensure that consumers have access to redress when they suffer

prejudice in the marketplace. Introducing these new avenues to justice

was deemed necessary because the more traditional route through the

civil courts is not a viable option for consumers.

4

Litigation is expensive,

complicated and intimidating for most people even in circumstances

where consumers are not regarded as being vulnerable. The new forums

to which consumers may refer their complaints include consumer

courts operating in the provinces, ombuds, alternative dispute resolu-

tion agents, the National Credit Regulator (Regulator), the National

Consumer Commission (Commission) and the National Consumer

Tribunal (Tribunal).

5

Having an array of different forums for consumers to turn to may

theoretically be appealing, but in practice the picture is turning out to be

quite different. The one striking feature of decisions of the courts and the

Tribunal dealing with the CPA, is that the resolution of disputes is far

from speedy. On the contrary, one gets the impression that consumers

are being sent from pillar to post; alternatively they engage in forum

shopping in the hopes of resolving their complaints.

6

In Imperial Group

1

Woker, ‘Consumer protection and alternative dispute resolution’ (2016) 28 SAMLJ 21.

2

34 of 2005.

3

68 of 2008.

4

See Woker, (2016) 28 SAMLJ 21 at 23–24 where this issue is discussed more fully. In some

instances, suppliers may even engage in criminal conduct; however, reporting such matters to

the criminal authorities does not assist consumers to obtain redress.

5

For a more detailed discussion of the role of each of these forums, see Woker (2016) 28

SAMLJ 21–48.

6

See, for example, Clientele General Insurance Ltd v National Consumer Commission

(NCT/4671/2012/60(3) & 101(1) (P)) [2013] ZANCT 7 (15 April 2013) SAFLII, available at

http://www.saf‌lii.org/za/cases/ZANCT/2013/7.html; Simelane v Pretoria Franchise Support

Services (Pty) Ltd t/a Fastway Couriers (Pretoria) (NCT/8742/2013/73(3) & 75(1)(b)&(2)

CPA) [2013] ZANCT 43 (14 November 2013) SAFLII, available at http://www.saf‌lii.org/za/

cases/ZANCT/2013/43.html; Lekgetho v Outsurance (unreported case no NCT/21125/2015/

75(1)(b) (9 February 2015)); Bandera Trading and Projects CC v Kia Motors SA (Pty) Ltd t/a

The Glen; Wesbank; Short Term Insurance Ombud; Public Protector (unreported case no

NCT/17829/2014/75(1)(b)) Rule 34 (24 February 2016)); Mmebe v Nashalele Specialist

Imports (Pty) Ltd (unreported case no NCT/34961/2015/75(1)(b) (10 March 2016)); Imperial

Group (Pty) Ltd t/a Cargo Motors Klerksdorp v Dipico and others (unreported case no

1260/2015 NCK (1 April 2016)); Mbekeni v Freeway Toyota (NCT 36177/2015/75(1)(b))

[2016] ZANCT 18 (1 April 2016) SAFLII, available at http://www.saf‌lii.org/za/cases/ZANCT/

2016/18.html; Imperial Group (Pty) Ltd t/a Auto Niche Bloemfontein v MEC: Economic

Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Free State Government and others [2016] 3

All SA 794 (FB); Lazarus and another v RDB Project Management CC t/a Solid and another

(2017) 29 SA MERC LJ

2

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd