Sandton Repo Cars to refund customer R459 900 for unsafe VW golf

The Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, has ruled that a used car dealership must refund a buyer for the defective car she bought and that it could not hide behind technical defences.

Not only must Sandton Repo Cars refund the consumer the R459 900 she had paid for the car, but it must also pay a fine of R100 000 for non-compliance in an administrative penalty.

The National Consumer Commission (NCC) welcomed the judgment, which followed an appeal by Repo Cars against an earlier ruling by the National Consumer Tribunal in favour of the NCC.

Sandton Repo contended that the consumer’s complaint had already lapsed when the NCC referred it to the Tribunal. Section 116 of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) provides that a complaint may not be referred to the Tribunal more than three years after the act or omission that is the cause of the complaint.

On May 13, 2020, the consumer paid R459,900 towards the purchase of a 2018 Volkswagen Golf from Sandton Repo. The consumer was assured that the vehicle had never been involved in an accident.

Five days later, the vehicle began to leak oil. On October 5, 2020, the consumer took the vehicle to Volkswagen in the Western Cape and was informed that it had been involved in an accident. She was advised that it was unsafe to drive.

On October 8, 2020, the consumer informed Sandton Repo through her lawyers that she was exercising her rights to cancel the transaction for a full refund under Section 56(2)(b) of the CPA.

The supplier refused to collect the vehicle and demanded that it be delivered so that the supplier could inspect it to determine the usage costs before agreeing to cancel the transaction.

The NCC referred the matter to the Tribunal, which held that Sandton Repo had contravened sections of the CPA. The High Court held that Sandton Repo relied on a provision of the Prescription Act, which relates to the prescription of debt and not the conduct complained about.

The court ruled that the complaint arose not only from the supply of defective goods but also from the appellant's refusal to collect the vehicle at its own cost and issue a refund.

Welcoming the judgment, the NCC’s Acting Commissioner, Hardin Ratshisusu, said the decision clarifies the jurisdiction of the NCC to investigate and prosecute continuing conduct that remains unresolved.

He added that consumers will now be able to file complaints in circumstances where suppliers unduly delay providing redress, with the hope that such complaints would lapse.

“This will ensure Section 116 of the CPA (regarding time bar) is applied in a manner that fully protects consumers,” he said.

Cape Times