Second-hand car deals take wrong turn
BUYERS SOLD FAULTY VEHICLES
SOME second-hand car dealers continuously flout the law and deliberately mislead consumers about their rights and their own obligations.
Consumer Line has noticed that such dealers overlook the rights of consumers regarding the implied warranty to replace, repair or refund a consumer who tries to return defective goods.
In terms of section 55(6) of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), every consumer has the right to receive goods that are reasonably suitable for the purposes for which they are generally intended.
According to the CPA, the goods must be of good quality, in good working order and free of any defects.
But Consumer Line still receives complaints from consumers supplied with vehicles that have defects or break soon after they take possession of them.
An example of this is the case of Ziyanda Ndabula, who bought a second-hand Chev Captiva from Pretoria Auto Elegance a month ago.
She said the car broke down just a few hours after she drove it out of the dealer’s premises.
When she complained, the dealer told her to bring it back so that they could fix the problem.
“They did not even tell me about my rights as a valued customer. They simply took the car for a 20-minute inspection and later returned it without telling me what was wrong with it,” Ndabula said.
It later transpired that the oil filter was leaking and its 5-year service warranty was interrupted when the car was not taken for a service when it clocked 75 000km, Ndabula said.
“It has also been repaired with pirate parts when they should have used original parts.”
The act further states that consumers have the right to return to the supplier faulty, damaged or poor quality goods within six months of the date of purchase.
Consumer Line has seen an e-mail in which Auto Elegance rejects Ndabula’s cancellation of the deal.
The e-mail reads that she is not above the law and she must take the vehicle and trade it in at any Chevrolet dealer for a 2016 Captiva or return it next year as a trade-in.
Responding to Ndabula’s complaint, John Rodrigues, the dealer principal at Auto Elegance, said he had two independent diagnostic reports to prove that the car was in good working order.
However, he could not explain why Ndabula’s car was still in his possession.
“We have advised Ndabula to follow the proper protocol. She is more than welcome to lodge a complaint with the ombudsman and Consumer Council,” Rodrigues said.
Ndabula’s case is not unique. Victor Mofokeng bought a Jaguar XF 2009 from Bramar Auto in Boksburg for R204 000. Before signing the contract he test drove it and heard a squeaking noise coming from the rear wheels and brake pads.
He brought this to the attention of the regional manager, who promised to fix these defects but never did. Three weeks later the squeaky noise resurfaced and when he took the car back he was told its warranty had expired, he said.
“It was only then that I noticed that I had signed my rights away as the warranty was limited to 30 days,” Mofokeng said.
When he took the car to Jaguar for a thorough check a report revealed that the noise came from the diff of the car and would cost about R50 000 to repair.
Mofokeng said the car was also fitted with a battery not recommended for a Jaguar. This resulted in the malfunctioning of its electronics.
“Darryn Kruger [the sales manager] also withheld the vital information that the car was previously involved in an accident.”
Kruger admitted that the car was fitted with a battery that was not a Jaguar product.
He said they had no reason to believe that Transpower Motors would have fitted a battery which did not comply with the manufacturer’s specifications.
“If this was incorrect, we will take that aspect up with them and demand a replacement,” Kruger said.
He said he was not aware of the car having been previously involved in an accident. It was six years old, with a mileage of 160 000km, and since it was beyond the warranty period there was nothing they could do.