Complaint The complainant purchased a used vehicle from a dealer. The vehicle was delivered by truck (and not driven) without a licence disc. The lights were faulty, there was no breakdown apparatus (wheel spanner or jack) and the vehicle was faulty. The complainant had the vehicle inspected by an alternative service provider who provided the complainant with a list of faults found. The complainant had different repairs carried out on the vehicle by several alternative service providers.
Recommendation The complainant was referred to the office of the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) for investigation and it was found that due to third party repairs having been carried out during the implied six months warranty provided by Section 56(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 68 of 2008, the MIOSA found in favour of the service provider.
Complaint The complainant purchased a used truck. The complainant stated that there was a vibration on the truck when driving at a speed of 80 kilometres per hour, this was attributed to wheel alignment, which the complainant made sure was attended to. This could not fix the problem as the truck would still vibrate badly when carrying a load, but performed excellently with no load. This was due to a diesel leak and injector concerns, which the complainant repaired at his own costs, after which the complainant wanted the respondent to attend to other outstanding issues which the complainant could not pay for, or the transaction should be cancelled. The respondent denied any liability and claimed that the truck was sold as is.
Recommendation The office of the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) highlighted that in terms of section 56 subsection 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA), there is a six months implied warranty after the delivery of any goods to a consumer. However, due to the complainant having taken the truck to a third party repairer to have some repairs carried out, without notifying the respondent, the complainant had lost all recourse against the respondent in terms of section 56 subsection 1 of the CPA, and as such his expectations could not be supported by the MIOSA.
Complaint The complainant purchased a used 2011 model vehicle, on the 31st of January 2019. The complainant stated that on the 04th of February 2019 he realised that the vehicle had an oil leak, broken head lamp switch, was hard starting and the battery was not charging. The vehicle was taken back to the respondent on the 06th of February 2019 and since then the oil leakage had not stopped. The vehicle had been in for repairs on more than eight occasions. The complainant wanted the respondent to cancel the sales transaction. The respondent was willing to uplift the transaction in question but there was money loaded onto the transaction for the settlement of his previous vehicle which needed to be paid back before they could uplift the transaction.
Recommendation The office of the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) recommended that the complainant should make the necessary arrangement to confirm a meeting date, with the respondent, to discuss the settlement transaction, in order to have the deal uplifted as per his request. It was a further recommendation of the MIOSA that the respondent should cancel the transaction in line with Section 20 subsection 5 & 6 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.
We use cookies on this site
We use cookies to personalise and enhance your experience on out site. Visit our Cookie policy
to learn more. By clicking "accept", you agree to our use of cookies.
