Saturday, 16 February 2019

The Voice - Consumer's Voice

Should I join AIM Global?

I read what you wrote about Alliance In Motion (AIM) Global in the newspapers last year. It is now back in Gaborone to recruit members. My question is: "Is it now a proper company to join?"

No, please don’t even think of joining Alliance In Motion. Nothing has changed since they first appeared all the way from the Philippines to sell their scheme.

AIM Global is most certainly a pyramid scheme and they don’t seem shy about talking about it. They talk non-stop about the need to recruit multiple levels of people beneath you and then about how much money you can make when you start recruiting other people. If you read Section 9 of the new Consumer Protection Act you’ll see it explains that a pyramid scheme is “where participants in the scheme receive compensation derived primarily from their respective recruitment of other persons as participants”. That’s exactly how AIM describe their business.

The really dangerous aspect of AIM Global is the product range they offer. They claim that their “C247” product can help with 100 different serious medical conditions including asthma, beri-beri, cirrhosis, bone fracture, deafness, endometriosis, epilepsy, hypertension, hepatitis, “toxins in the body”, stroke, migraine and even cancer and “immunodeficiency”. Not only are they extremely dangerous claims to make, it’s also illegal in Botswana to make them. Not only does the Penal Code forbid such advertisements, but the new Medicines Regulatory Authority are going to want to ask some questions as well.

But that’s not the only illegal thing they do. I had a WhatsApp conversation with one of their recruiters and he proudly claimed that this C147 product had been approved by both our Ministry of Health and the Botswana Bureau of Standards. Both of those claims are lies and are illegal.

So, do you really want to associate with a company that has broken the rules set by the Ministry of Health, BOMRA, BOBS and by the law itself? Did I mention that the new Consumer Protection Act says that even joining a pyramid scheme, not just operating or promoting it, can lead to a fine of up to P100,000 and imprisonment for up to five years?

Can I demand a new phone?

On 25th October i bought a Lenovo K6 phone from a store in Game City. Around 28th January the battery seemed to have a problem as it could not fully charge even if I left it charging overnight. On 2nd February the phone was completely off and could not charge. I took it back to the store where they promised they'll fix the battery. On 8th February I went to check my phone only to find its screen broken with a crack diagonally connecting two of its corners. I talked to the manager about it and she admitted it was one of her employees fault then she told me to come and collect it today around lunch time as they will fix the screen. I just said yes BUT throughout the night I was thinking about my phone and wondering what if the phone was dropped or knocked breaking the internal circuit? They might just fix the screen and next week it will give me another problem. So I wanted to know if I have any right to demand a new phone to replace this one as they have already voided its warranty. I am afraid the fixed or replaced screen is not going to give me the satisfaction that I got from the original screen of the phone.

It might seem unfair but there is currently no right to demand a replacement when a product is faulty. You are entitled to one of the three Rs: a refund, a repair or a replacement but it’s the decision of the supplier to decide which they offer you. They’re entitled to do their best to repair the phone to the condition it was in when you gave it to them.

However, I also think you’re entitled to ask them for some evidence that the phone is back to its original condition. I would ask them for a technical report that states that the battery and charging mechanism are back to normal but also exactly what you asked for, an assurance that the screen repair didn’t cause any other damage. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable thing to ask.

No comments: