Subscribe to our newsletter

Do you enjoy reading our newsletter? Consider joining our mailing list, and we will send you our monthly newsletter straight to your inbox.

Braai Chain Hauled Over the Coals for Hidden Service Charges and Fined R1m

by | Constitutional Law, Consumer Law, Uncategorized

“The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing… If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” (Groucho Marx)

We’ve all had this experience – meal over, relaxed and happy, you call for the bill and decide to reward your friendly and helpful waitron with a good tip. Only to find, on checking the bill when you get home, that the restaurant had already added a “compulsory service charge” (perhaps 10% or 15% – sometimes even more). When you challenge it, the manager points to the small print on the menu which says something like “service charge applies to tables of six or more”, or “discretionary service charge may be levied”. 

And it’s not only restaurants that engage in such shenanigans. Perhaps it’s a builder or any other service provider adding on bits and pieces to an invoice that you hadn’t noticed when you signed up with them.

Is this kind of behaviour allowed?

The devil, as always, is in the details. If the add-on was properly disclosed to you upfront, you have no legal leg to stand on. It’s up to you to check the menu, or the supplier’s website and Ts and Cs, before ordering. 

But it’s a very different story if the add-on was not properly disclosed upfront by the supplier. As a recent judgment of the National Consumer Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) shows, heavy penalties await any “supplier” (widely defined to include not only restaurants and retailers, but anyone who markets or supplies any goods or services to consumers) who breaches any of their many obligations under the CPA (Consumer Protection Act). And that includes “no hidden charges allowed”.

Being found guilty of “prohibited conduct” will be an expensive exercise. Witness the R1m administrative fine imposed recently on a fast-food chain specialising in that beloved South African tradition – braaivleis.

The braai fast-food chain and the disgruntled customer

Acting on a tip-off from a customer, the NCC (National Consumer Commission) found that a fast-food chain, specialising in “organic braai fast food” (chew on that description for a moment) with 16 outlets across Gauteng was adding a service fee over and above its advertised prices. No mention of this was advertised in its branches, on its menus, or on its website. 

Unabashed, the chain argued before the Tribunal that it was fully compliant with the CPA, that the charge was a fee “to ensure the best service to the consumer” and that there is “a transparent general practice to disclose cost structures rather than hide behind an exorbitant price model.”

The Tribunal, deeply unimpressed with this (frankly baffling) line of reasoning, found the chain guilty of prohibited conduct and gave it 90 days to pay a R1m administrative fine. 

Two breaches of the CPA 

The chain was found guilty of two contraventions of the CPA:

1. That as a supplier it “must not require a consumer to pay a price for any goods or services higher than the displayed price for those goods or services.” 

2. It must also “provide a written record of each transaction to the consumer to whom any goods or services are supplied.” This record “must include at least the following information: the address of the premises at which, or from which, the goods or services were supplied.” Without that, as the Tribunal put it, “vulnerable consumers could find it difficult to institute legal proceedings and enforce their rights.”

A R1m fine for “preying on unwitting customers for selfish financial gains”

The chain, said the Tribunal, had “acted deceitfully towards its customers and contravened the CPA’s significant provisions. It acted contemptuously towards the very consumers who supported it. 

Accordingly: “the Tribunal considers it appropriate to impose an administrative fine that will deter it and other suppliers from preying on unwitting consumers for selfish financial gains.”

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

More Articles

Cancelled Sale, Damaged Property. Who Pays?

Cancelled Sale, Damaged Property. Who Pays?

When a sale falls through, most people assume restitution means simply giving back the money and the property. A recent High Court decision shows it is rarely that straightforward, particularly if the property itself has changed in the interim. The ruling explains how restoration costs should be worked out, and why the condition of the property when occupation begins can matter years later.

Can Family Conflict Kibosh a Trust?

Can Family Conflict Kibosh a Trust?

When a trust’s founder dies, families often assume that whatever they said they wanted will be honoured, even if the trust deed was never changed to reflect it. A recent Supreme Court of Appeal decision confirms that this is not how trusts work. What governs a trust after the founder’s death is the trust deed itself, not the wishes they expressed at family meetings in their final years.

Does the Consumer Protection Act Protect Every Tenant?

Does the Consumer Protection Act Protect Every Tenant?

Paying rent under a residential lease does not automatically make you a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. A recent Supreme Court of Appeal decision shows that the real question is whether the landlord is letting property in the ordinary course of business. That said, even where the CPA does not apply and a lease is validly cancelled, a landlord cannot simply tell a tenant to leave without following the correct eviction process.