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

Renegotiating After You’ve Signed: The Email That Ended a Property Sale

Renegotiating After You’ve Signed: The Email That Ended a Property Sale

After their bond was withdrawn, the buyers were given time to arrange new finance. Instead, one of them emailed the conveyancer saying they would only apply for another bond after the seller repaired an alleged defect or agreed to reduce the price. The seller understood this to mean that the buyers would not proceed on the terms they had already accepted. She cancelled the sale, and the High Court agreed that she was entitled to do so. The buyers lost the sale and the money already paid and faced further financial consequences.

Was it Even His Signature? How to Overturn a Fraudulent Will

Was it Even His Signature? How to Overturn a Fraudulent Will

It’s unfortunately all too common a tale. Out of the blue, an older person, rendered vulnerable by age or illness, acquires a new “friend”. Before anyone in the family realises what’s going on, their loved one has died, and the fraudster claims to be sole heir in terms of a last-minute will. No surprise then that our courts must often determine whether a deceased person’s last will was tainted by incapacity, undue influence, fraud, or even forgery. The sad tale of a 90-year-old man who left behind two conflicting wills is a good example of how our courts approach these situations.

Employ a Foreign National? What You Must Check Now, and What Could Change

Employ a Foreign National? What You Must Check Now, and What Could Change

Under the current law, it is already illegal to employ someone who is not legally entitled to work in South Africa. This applies to businesses and to households employing foreign domestic workers, nannies or gardeners. A new Bill proposes additional duties and higher penalties for employers, but these changes are not yet law. Employers should therefore comply with the existing law and remain alert to the proposed changes.