Based on the number of complaints we continue to receive from consumers claiming to have bought goods, which, after a relatively short period of use, manifest defects or sometimes cease to function altogether, we believe that a case may well exist for even greater vigilance on the part of the local consumer protection authorities.
It appears the problems associated with customer dissatisfaction over what we commonly describe as ‘value for money’ continues to spread itself over a wide range of consumer goods including household appliances, electrical and electronic equipment and some items of clothing and shoes. Indeed, we recall being shown two pretty stark examples of the problem of an absence of ‘value for money’ recently; the first was what appeared to be a new imported shirt with an entire sleeve missing; the second evidently a new pair of shoes with one of the soles completely detached after – according to the owner – having been worn only once. In both instances the retailer had replaced the item reluctantly and only after being reminded that there was an authority to which the aggrieved consumer could appeal.
The problem of consumer goods that are simply not worth the money spent on them also appears to affect the cellular phone industry and apart from those complaints that have come to our attention, the Guyana National Bureau of Standards (GNBS) has said that it too has been in receipt of a number of complaints about supposedly new cell phones that simply cease to function after a relatively short time. It appears, from what we are told, that not only here in Guyana but elsewhere in developing countries where the appetite for items like cellular phones, personal and laptop computers and other IT-related equipment has become insatiable, some suppliers are making a ‘pretty penny’ out of offering ‘new’ equipment, partially comprising used components that are on their ‘last legs’, so to speak. And even in cases where warranties are offered claims for refunds and replacements are often met with the response that it did not appear that the circumstance under which the particular item was rendered dysfunctional was covered by the warranty.
Then there were quite a few cases over the Christmas holiday where toys, mostly battery-driven and sometimes some relatively expensive ones ceased to function. Bicycles also encountered some difficulty with the moving parts after a relatively short period. In the case of the battery-driven toys, we discovered clear evidence of at least two stores that had put away stock from the previous Christmas or Christmases, only to dust the boxes off and place them on the shelves again. As one parent put it during a conversation with this newspaper “it is not easy to have to cope with the disappointment of a child whose toy does not at least last the 12 days of Christmas.”
Two points should be made at this juncture. First, from much of what we have been told it appears that some suppliers of defective goods still seek to protect themselves from culpability by proffering the absurd and wholly unacceptable excuse that they cannot be blamed if the goods that they sell are supplied to them with defects. However, in fact, they are only too well aware that the exchange of good and money was made on the understanding that whatever it is that was bought was not defective.
The second point is that while we raised the problem of defective toys with the Guyana National Bureau of Standards a few weeks ago their response was that complaints in respect of toys had not been brought to their attention. This we found surprising given the fact that at least seven parents whose children’s holidays had been affected by the disappointment of defective toys had spoken with us – after having tried without success to have the toys changed or their monies refunded – and we were led to conclude that – perhaps – there was a less widespread awareness than we had thought was the case of the existence of an agency through which one could seek restitution.
While the GNBS has made various efforts to promote itself and the work it does some of the problems appear to be beyond its present capabilities. It appears, for example, that the inspection systems that monitor some categories of imported goods are weak and ineffective and that there are simply no reliable barriers against defective or substandard goods being brought into the country in the first place. This, of course, is a problem that faces several poor countries where a substantial section of the consuming public are poor people with limited disposable income, ideal targets for cheap and sometimes worthless products. In fact, it would perhaps not be unfair to say that some traders pursue a deliberate policy of importing what are known in developing countries as seconds – goods produced with one defect or another – which means that they would be acquired cheaper and can then be disposed of at more competitive prices. The downside of this, of course, is the absence of reliable warranties – or at least reliable ones – and the high likelihood that the supplier will not be amenable to exchanges or refunds.
Here, it is not a question of heaping all of the blame on the monitoring authorities but of simply advocating that in the face of what is becoming an increasingly complex problem, efforts be redoubled to strengthen monitoring capacity and to create mechanisms of resort for aggrieved consumers through which they can secure relatively easy redress. It is, after all, a considerable additional burden for people who make what are sometimes fairly expensive purchases at considerable sacrifice to be confronted with the discovery that their investments have simply gone down the drain.
