Faulty clutch gives motorist endless pain
Another brand’s part used
CAN you imagine how frustrated you would be to discover that your car dealer has repaired the clutch on your car with that of another brand and insists you pay for it?
Penelope Dubula, 45, said that is the kind of service you could get when you take your car to BB Nissan, which operates from corner Pretorius and Richard streets in Hatfield, Pretoria.
Dubula said in her 10 years of motoring she has never had such horrendous experience as she has had with the Qashqai she bought a year ago.
She said she had a breakdown at the end of March which was associated with the clutch and it had to be replaced.
To her shock, it was replaced with a clutch of a Renault instead of a Nissan brand, she said.
Though she had initially requested the old clutch set that malfunctioned, as well as the boxes of the new clutch set and its receipt, she was not given any.
Dubula said she was verbally assured that they bought a new clutch set, and had discarded the faulty one, she said.
“I was shocked when I found a box of clutch kit from Renault in the boot of my car and immediately sent Vos Pretorius (the sales manager at Nissan) a WhatsApp message inquiring about the box. He never responded,” Dubula said.
Three days later, she experienced the same problem she had with the old clutch.
She took it back to the dealer, who replaced the three-day old clutch and demanded a further R19 000 for the work, she said.
Dubula said section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act clearly states that if a repaired or replaced part does not function within three months after the work is done, the service provider must redo the work for free or replace the part.
Before inspecting the car, their procedure is to get permission from the consumer; give a quote and advise a consumer of further costs if any.
“They have placed my life in danger and betrayed my trust. I don’t know what to expect of that car anymore,” Dubula said.
She said Nissan has kept her car in exchange of a further R19 000 they expect her to pay for their shoddy workmanship and questionable replacement.
She said they still could not produce the second clutch they replaced when she demanded to see it.
“If you have not given approval of the costs before the work is done, I cannot be charged for it,” said Dubula.
She said at the time of the repairs she had clocked 53 389km, which is still within the Nissan motor maintenance plan which is supposed to cover such costs as the repairs carried on the car, but Pretorius told her she had to pay.
There was no communication from Nissan for five weeks until she was told to pay for further costs which were never communicated to her, she said. “The agreement with Pretorius to have the presence of my designated witness was also not honoured.” Dubula said Nissan had told her she was to blame for the damage to the car after the repairs as they had verified and proved this but refused to produce evidence to back up their claim or a copy of warranty that excluded the damages she suffered.
She was told to get the replaced clutch from the automaker’s head office, only to be referred to the Motor Industry Ombudsman (MIO) when she requested it.
“They gave me incorrect particulars for the MIO. I only discovered this last week when I tried to follow up on my inquiry,” said Dubula.
Coreen Nagel of Nissan SA said they have thoroughly investigated Dubula’s concern and have responded to her in writing.
“Although the customer has not accepted Nissan SA’s response we have referred her to the Motor Industry Ombudsman for adjudications on the matter.
“They are the highest authority in the motor industry and their rulings bind all parties by law,” said Nagel, who ignored further questions Consumer Line asked.
They have placed my life in danger and betrayed my trust