Two vehicle businesses fined for shoddy service

One complainant is still without his vehicle four years after taking it in for an engine replacement.

Two vehicle businesses have been fined by the National Consumer Tribunal (NCT) – one for installing the incorrect replacement engine in a client’s vehicle and retaining possession of the vehicle for four years, and the other for failing to repair a vehicle to the required standard.

The NCT dismissed another complaint where the owner of a 1.4 VW Polo Vivo was seeking the cancellation of the purchase agreement and a refund of the money already paid and costs because the airbags of her vehicle allegedly deployed without it being involved in an accident.

ADVERTISEMENT CONTINUE READING BELOW Read: Court orders refund for unwitting buyer of previously written-off vehicle Consumers increasingly approaching consumer commission after being sold defective cars

These judgments follow the National Consumer Commission (NCC) confirming in August that disgruntled consumers are increasingly approaching it for assistance with motor vehicle-related complaints.

The NCC received 3 653 complaints in its 2022/23 financial year, of which 25.6% or 935 complaints were motor vehicle-related.

Right to timely service ‘violated’

Spares for Africa CC, located at 217 Van Der Hoff Road in Pretoria, was found to have contravened various sections of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and ordered to:

• Return to Happy Nkuna his fully assembled 2017 Ford Focus within 30 days and in as good condition as when the business collected it from him;
• Refund Nkuna the R5 000 deposit he paid within 30 days, with interest at the prescribed rate calculated from 19 September 2019; and
• Pay an administrative fine of R75 000 within 90 days into the bank account of the National Revenue Fund.

The NCT panel said the undisputed facts of the parties were that a verbal agreement was concluded on 19 September 2019 for the supply and installation of a complete 1.0-litre engine for a 2017 Ford Focus for R25 092.50, which included the towing costs.

Nkuna paid Spares for Africa a R5 000 deposit, with the outstanding balance of R20 092.50 to be settled after the engine was fitted.

Spares for Africa towed the vehicle to Rautomec, a third-party service provider, for the fitment of the engine on 20 September 2019.

After test-driving the vehicle on 11 June 2020, Nkuna notified Spares for Africa that he believed the incorrect engine was fitted and requested the correct engine be fitted.

Nkuna did not settle the outstanding balance. Spares for Africa refused to replace the engine and demanded payment of the outstanding amount.

Nkuna’s vehicle remains in Spares for Africa’s possession, with it claiming it has a lien over the vehicle until the full outstanding amount is paid.

Read: 83 days to get vehicle back from dealership

The NCT judgment said it is undisputed that the verbal agreement between the parties was on supplying and installing a complete engine, which ordinarily refers to a fully assembled, ready-to-install engine with all necessary components.

It said Nkuna was not informed that additional parts would be required and the invoice dated 19 September 2019 did not refer to any additional parts or services.

The tribunal said the issue of additional parts and services is also key because it forms part of the amount Spares for Africa demands before releasing the vehicle.

The NCT said suppliers are prohibited by the CPA from charging consumers for goods or services without providing an estimate or obtaining pre-authorisation from the consumer.

It said Nkuna is not obligated to pay for unsolicited goods or services in terms of the CPA, which also prohibits Spares for Africa from demanding or collecting payment from the complainant.

“The panel is concerned that the cost of these unsolicited additional parts and services (R25,466.83) was significantly high and exceeded the original invoice amount (R25,092.50),” it said.

The NCT said Spares for Africa had no intention of supplying a Ford Focus engine and the panel accepts the quality of the engine supplied was inferior to that of a Ford Focus.

“The vehicle has been with the respondent [Spares for Africa] for over four years without resolution when all it required was an engine swap,” it said.

“The panel is convinced the respondent’s [Spares for Africa] actions violated the complainant’s right to timely service under section 54(1)(a).”

Shoddy work and poor treatment

Supertech Motor Holding, trading as BMW (Pty) Ltd and based in East London, was found by the NCT to have failed to repair Nomtshato Cynthia Lutu’s vehicle in a manner and quality that persons are generally entitled to expect before asking the consumer to collect the vehicle and receiving payment, thereby contravening the CPA.

Supertech Motor Holdings was ordered to:

• Ensure that all the repairs that Lutu paid for are properly conducted;
• Allow Lutu to collect her vehicle within seven business days without any further charges;
• Pay an administrative fine of R20 000 within 30 business days into the bank account of the National Revenue Fund.

Lutu complained that on 6 October 2021 she took her vehicle to Supertech for a quote and possible repairs because it was leaking oil and losing power.

Supertech diagnosed the problems and Lutu authorised repairs to the vehicle for a total of R19 974.47. ADVERTISEMENT: CONTINUE READING BELOW

On 3 November 2021, Lutu paid for the repairs when she collected the vehicle but after driving the vehicle for 10km, started smelling oil and the vehicle was emitting smoke.

Lutu stopped the vehicle and contacted Supertech. It sent a driver to attend to the vehicle, who discovered the engine was covered in oil.

The vehicle was driven back to Supertech’s premises but on arrival caught fire, which was quickly extinguished.

Supertech was not willing to repair the vehicle and Lutu lodged a complaint with the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA), which recommended that Supertech repair the vehicle.

It repaired the vehicle and returned it to her in December 2022 but when Lutu tried to drive the vehicle, she found it was not working.

Lutu requested that Supertech repair it. Supertech discovered the vehicle could not operate due to a blocked catalytic converter.

It issued a quotation of R144 820.56 for repairs.

The NCC alleged Supertech was refusing to repair Lutu’s vehicle and return it to her in at least the same condition as it was when she made it available to the business.

Two ‘strong messages’

Acting NCC Commissioner Hardin Ratshisusu welcomes the two judgements.

He stressed that both send a strong message to suppliers that violations of the CPA will be prosecuted.

Read: Consumer Tribunal fines used car dealers, orders R1m total refund

“The NCC believes the tribunal’s findings will deter other suppliers from engaging in prohibited conduct.”

Complaint dismissed

Mapaseka Theresa Mere said she purchased a 1.4 VW Polo Vivo on 31 July 2021 for R333 622.08, but on 28 November 2021, while trying to close the vehicle’s front doors, the airbags deployed.

She contacted Kia South Africa for assistance and requested that it replace the vehicle or refund her all her money – but rejected an offer to have the vehicle repaired.

Kia SA advised her to contact Volkswagen SA, which advised her to contact her insurance company, which informed her she could not claim because the vehicle was not involved in an accident.

Volkswagen SA’s submission to the NCT was that when it assessed the vehicle, it was found the parameters for the deployment of the airbags were met, the vehicle’s crash data indicated the vehicle’s ignition was on and the vehicle was moving when the airbags were deployed and, as evidenced by the damage to the bumper and the bumper support bracket, the vehicle was not stationary when the incident occurred.

The NCT said the fact that there was no evidence of damage to the bumper and the bumper support bracket before the vehicle was sold to Mere lends credibility to Volkswagen SA’s version.

It said in the absence of evidence that disproves the versions of Kia SA and Volkswagen SA, the NCC had failed to prove on a preponderance of probabilities that they had contravened the provisions of the CPA. Mere was thus not entitled to the relief she sought.

Follow Moneyweb’s in-depth finance and business news on WhatsApp here.