RMI mediation expectation not as reported

I CAME across two articles on the IOL website about the mediation services of the RMI in which you interviewed Jan Schoeman, the chief operations officer of the Retail Motor Industry (RMI): Car hassles? Consider RMI mediation. (By Georgina Crouth, June 2016) and the more recent What to do if you are unhappy with your car’s repairs (July 2019).

The statements that you made in those articles mirror the expectation that I had when I brought a complaint to the RMI in March this year.

However, the process that was followed after I submitted all my documents in mid-April is by no means in line with the comments you made in those articles.

You emphasised the swift handling of complaints. I submitted my documents by April 17. A first hearing was scheduled on April 29 after which I was asked to get an independent report by a technical inspector. I submitted this on May 10. Despite several follow-ups by email and telephonically,

I received no further response until end of August when finally, another meeting was scheduled on August 27.

Thereafter, I still received no feedback at the dates I was promised. Despite further follow-ups, I still have not received a report or any other written feedback. This is more than five months later.

In my particular case, I did not get the idea that the RMI inspector assumed an impartial role. He also appeared unprepared as he asked questions which made it clear that he had not even read the claim form and attached documents, not the independent report submitted later.

The ensuing process, or rather lack thereof, gives further indication that his attempt to resolve the matter impartially is rather minimal, if not non-existent.

At the end of the first meeting, I was asked to get an independent report by a technical inspector. To quickly summarise my claim: I had my car for a number of repairs at a workshop.

Shortly after, the car suffered a total engine failure. As I had not been satisfied with the work by this workshop in first place, I took the car to another workshop to replace the engine where it turned out that the engine failure was a result of faulty workmanship from the workshop that the car has previously been to. I had to spend R100 000 to have the engine replaced.

For the technical report, the inspector recommended I get a former RMI technical inspector involved. The report did indeed confirm my case.

After three months of no feedback from the RMI, despite polite follow-ups, I became more persistent and eventually a second hearing was scheduled. When I arrived at the meeting at the service providers workshop, the inspector just asked me: “What do you want from those guys?” I said they should be held liable for the cost I incurred as a result of their faulty workmanship. Nothing else was discussed and I was sent off.

Is the RMI’s idea of mediation? I was promised feedback by the end of the week. This did not happen.

Eventually he got back to me: said the workshop sees no fault on their side and feels they should have had right or first repair. I am still waiting for a written outcome of the RMI’s assessment.

In the articles, you spoke about dire consequences for members who do not abide to recommendations and internal disciplinary processes. The verbal feedback I received from the inspector does not instil confidence in me that the RMI will make a recommendation in favour of my claim.

If indeed the RMI prides itself on its reputation, my expectation would for be that a case like this does get the proper attention with a thorough inspection. At this point, an RMI badge does not hold any significance to me, having had an inside perspective to the “mediation” process. And an RMI membership does not say anything on the quality of a workshop.