Consumers who buy a vehicle that develops serious defects may have more than a repair claim: depending on the circumstances, the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) can entitle them to a replacement or refund.
Six recent judgments involving vehicle suppliers show what can happen when dealers fail to meet those obligations – including orders to repay consumers and administrative fines.
The cases, publicised by the National Consumer Commission (NCC), involved defective vehicles, repeated unsuccessful repairs, and suppliers that failed to comply with the Commission’s instructions. They also underline that a supplier cannot simply ask a consumer to waive statutory rights.
Spares 4 Africa: wrong engine, years without the vehicle
The dispute concerned a 2017 Ford Focus that had been taken to Spares 4 Africa. The National Consumer Tribunal found that the supplier had installed the wrong engine, and the consumer had been without the vehicle for more than four years.
The Tribunal ordered Spares 4 Africa to take back the vehicle, refund the consumer’s R5 000 deposit with interest, and pay an administrative fine of R75 000. The supplier appealed, but the High Court dismissed the appeal with costs, leaving the Tribunal’s order in place.
Flawless Cars: refund order ignored
A consumer bought a Ford Fiesta from Flawless Cars for R170 000 in December 2015. The vehicle developed recurring defects within six months, and the consumer sought to cancel the sale in June 2016.
The dealer collected the car for repairs but continued to retain it. Following its investigation, the NCC issued a compliance notice requiring Flawless Cars to refund the consumer within 14 days. The supplier did not comply, and the Tribunal imposed a R100 000 administrative fine.
Sunward Motors: repeated breakdowns and a refund claim
In February 2023, a consumer bought a used 2016 Ford Tourneo Connect from Sunward Motors for R341 852.50. The vehicle suffered multiple breakdowns, prompting the consumer to invoke section 56 of the CPA and seek cancellation of the transaction.
Sunward Motors did not refund the consumer or replace the vehicle. The Tribunal found that the supplier had failed to meet its obligations under the Act and ordered it to refund R302 898.
Affordable Investments: statutory rights cannot be signed away
Affordable Investments, trading as Used Car Centre, was the subject of a complaint about a defective pre-owned vehicle. The consumer had already received a full refund of R200 000 by the time the matter was resolved.
The settlement also addressed terms that sought to exclude or waive consumers’ statutory rights relating to defective goods and repairs. The Tribunal found that these terms contravened the CPA and imposed an administrative fine of R50 000.
Auto King: defective Hyundai H1
A consumer bought a used 2015 Hyundai H1 from Auto King for R328 345. The vehicle had persistent dark smoke, a turbocharger with an internal oil leak, and a compromised cylinder head.
The Tribunal ordered Auto King to cancel the sale and credit agreements and collect the vehicle at its own risk and expense. It also ordered the supplier to refund the consumer’s R90 000 deposit and repay the bank R246 117.70. Auto King was fined R100 000.
Kia East Rand: Audi defects and failed repairs
A consumer bought a pre-owned 2015 Audi A3 from Kia East Rand on 9 September 2022. Within weeks, the vehicle developed overheating problems and oil-pressure warnings. The dealer attempted repairs three times, but the problems were not resolved.
The High Court dismissed Kia East Rand’s appeal with costs, leaving in place the Tribunal’s order requiring a refund of R245 075 and an administrative fine of R50 000.
NCC: suppliers must comply
Welcoming the judgments, NCC Acting Commissioner Hardin Ratshisusu said they affirmed the Commission’s resolve to address CPA violations and showed that non-compliance has consequences.
“These judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court affirm the NCC’s resolve in tackling the violations of the CPA, and that there are consequences for non-compliance. Suppliers are reminded of their obligations to protect consumer rights in terms of the CPA.”
The cases show why it’s worth keeping a record of what went wrong with a vehicle, any repair attempts, and conversations with the dealer. If the problem isn’t sorted out, consumers can take their complaint to the NCC. They don’t have to assume they’re stuck with a defective vehicle just because the dealer refuses to help.
Access the full judgments here.
