The queue is automatically generated by the system and informs the Case Manager when a file is due for review.

As per the South African Automotive Industry Code of Conduct:

"The MIOSA will determine a dispute within 30 (thirty) days from the date it has received all the necessary documentation/information to enable the MIOSA to make an informed decision regarding a complaint"

As suggested and required by the National Consumer Commission, three efforts are made to convince a supplier to participate in the conciliation process. Should the supplier still fail to submit to the conciliation process you will be informed within 22 days of such failure.

It is an offence in terms of Section 108(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act No. 68 of 2008 (CPA) "to hinder, oppose, obstruct or unduly influence any person who is exercising a power or performing a duty delegated, conferred or imposed on that person by this Act".

Section 82(8) of the CPA states that "a supplier must note, in the ordinary course of business, contravene an applicable industry code".

Due to the Case Manager position, a Case Manager should be objective and independently decide on his recommendation and should therefore not consult or liaise with any of the parties involved before making his recommendation.

Progress on your complaint can be acquired by contacting the Information & Liaison Office on 010 590 8378.

The services of the MIOSA are free of charge to the consumer, except when an on-sight automotive and related industry product inspection is required.

In South African law, prescription is a legal principle that limits the time within which claims can be brought. According to the Prescription Act No. 68 of 1969, the prescription period for a claim is three years. This period starts when the complainant becomes aware, or reasonably ought to have become aware, of the occurrence that gave rise to the claim, whichever comes first.

When a complaint is lodged with the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) or the National Consumer Commission (NCC), the prescription period is not interrupted. This principle was affirmed in the case of NCC v. The Turbo Man CC (NCT/174555/2020/73(2)(b)), “NCT rules that previously it has held on various matters that such referral interrupts prescription in terms of section 116 of the CPA, but since the decision of the High Court where it was held that there is no provision in the CPA that deals with interruption of prescription therefore if a matter is referred to the NCT after the lapse of three years from the date of the cause of action complained, the NCT is barred from entertaining that matter. Consequently, if a complaint is referred to the NCT after the three-year prescription period has expired, the NCT is not permitted to entertain the matter.

The NCT has previously held that such referrals interrupt prescription under section 116 of the CPA. However, following a High Court decision, it was clarified that the CPA does not contain provisions for the interruption of prescription. Therefore, any matter referred to the NCT after the three-year period cannot be considered.

Stopping payment to the bank can have severe consequences for the consumer. The financial contract between the consumer and the bank is a separate and binding agreement from any contract the consumer has with a dealership. Any dispute between the consumer and the dealership does not affect the consumer's obligations under the financial contract with the bank.

The bank retains ownership of the vehicle as collateral until the finance agreement is fully settled. This ownership acts as security to ensure that the loan is repaid according to the contract's terms and conditions. Regardless of any external factors or disputes involving the dealership, if the consumer fails to meet their financial commitments to the bank, the bank reserves the right to repossess the vehicle and sell it to recover any losses. Additionally, the bank will "blacklist" the consumer and take legal action to recover the remaining balance of the loan, including interest.

It is important to understand that the bank's role is limited to loaning the money to the consumer. The bank is not involved in the sale, manufacture, or selection of the vehicle. Therefore, it would be unfair to expect the bank to bear the consequences of a dispute in which it had no involvement.