An online electronics retailer that advertises goods to Kiwi consumers and claims to have a local office has failed to comply with a court order to refund a customer for a faulty phone. The customer was told she had to pursue the case in Hong Kong against its parent company.
Retailer BecexTech New Zealand (becextech.co.nz) claims to offer the “best value” electronic goods specifically for the New Zealand market. It advertises an “extensive range of top brands” and promises you can “shop with confidence”. According to the company’s website, it has a friendly local support team to help.
In September 2015, Consumer member Penelope bought a $740 iPhone from BecexTech. When the phone failed 4 months later, she sent it back and was given a replacement. But when the replacement failed in October 2016, BecexTech told her its 12-month warranty had expired and wouldn’t accept her claim.
“BecexTech, like any trader operating in New Zealand, has to comply with the CGA. It must guarantee its products are of acceptable quality and provide a remedy when they’re not. If it misleads consumers about their rights, it also risks breaching the Fair Trading Act.”
Penelope was forced to go to the Disputes Tribunal seeking a refund of the iPhone’s cost plus the $80 she’d spent on a temporary replacement. The tribunal referee found the iPhone supplied by BecexTech wasn’t of acceptable quality and Penelope was entitled to a refund under the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA).
The referee said it was “irrelevant” that BecexTech’s 12-month warranty had expired, noting “the guarantees in the act apply irrespective of any warranty the manufacturer or supplier provide”.
BecexTech was ordered to refund $820 to Penelope by 29 March 2017, but failed to do so. The company told us it was not registered in New Zealand and the customer should pursue the matter in Hong Kong. It also said it would appeal the decision in the Hong Kong courts if she did so.
But Consumer adviser Maggie Edwards says the company’s assertion customers have to take their case to the Hong Kong courts is wrong.
“Consumer law applies to all traders who advertise directly to Kiwi consumers, even if the trader is based off-shore,” she says.
“BecexTech, like any trader operating in New Zealand, has to comply with the CGA. It must guarantee its products are of acceptable quality and provide a remedy when they’re not. If it misleads consumers about their rights, it also risks breaching the Fair Trading Act.”
This isn’t the first complaint we’ve had about BecexTech. We advise consumers not to do business with this trader.
If you’ve had a problem with BecexTech, let us know. We’ll be filing a complaint with the Commerce Commission about the cases we receive.
The commission says it’s received reports about BecexTech since 2013, with numbers rising “substantially” last year. Complaints allege the trader has misled consumers about their CGA rights, sold refurbished products as new and used misleading pricing. The commission is currently assessing these reports.
When we informed BecexTech we were publishing this article, it finally changed its stance and said it would refund Penelope.
