Two vehicle owners, frustrated by substandard repairs and shoddy workmanship, have finally received justice through rulings by the National Consumer Tribunal.
The National Consumer Commission (NCC) investigated complaints from consumers who alleged that Supertech Motor Holdings (Pty) Ltd, trading as BMW, and Spares for Africa CC had violated provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
In the first case, a consumer brought their vehicle to Supertech for repairs, paying R19 974.47. Despite the payment, the consumer was left dissatisfied with the quality of the work. Following an NCC investigation, it was found that Supertech had breached section 54(1)(b) of the CPA, which requires suppliers to perform services in a manner that meets the reasonable expectations of consumers.
The Tribunal confirmed that Supertech’s failure to meet this standard was a violation of the CPA, declaring their conduct unlawful.
The company was ordered to correct the repairs and was fined R20 000 for its failure to comply with the expected service standards.
In a case that highlights the frustrations consumers can face when dealing with poor service, Spares for Africa CC has come under fire for a botched engine replacement that dragged on for years.
The trouble began when a consumer, in need of a 2017 Ford Focus engine, received a quote from Spares for Africa for just over R25 000. After making an upfront payment of R5 000 for the engine and its installation, the vehicle was collected by Spares for Africa on 20 September 2019 and taken to a third-party workshop, Rautomec, which the supplier claimed to own.
It took Rautomec nine months to install the engine. When the consumer finally test-drove the vehicle, they immediately raised concerns about its performance. It was found that Rautomec had installed the wrong engine – a Ford Fiesta engine.
Rautomec neither provided a quotation for the additional parts nor sought the consumer’s approval before installing them, later slapping the consumer with an invoice for more than R19 000.
Despite the consumer’s repeated attempts to resolve the issue, and Spares for Africa’s admission that the wrong engine had been fitted, it failed to install the correct engine. The vehicle remained with Spares for Africa for more than four years without resolution.
Handing down its ruling, the Tribunal noted that Spares for Africa’s conduct was contrary to the spirit of the CPA espoused under sections 4(4)(b), 15(2)(a), 21(e), 29(a) and 41(1)(c).
“The Tribunal raised its disappointment with the lack of transparency in this transaction, as vehicles and engines are technical goods that demand honest and accurate disclosure by suppliers so that the consumer can make informed decisions.
“The Tribunal further indicated that the conduct of Spares for Africa CC is serious and has severely prejudiced the consumer. The consumer has been deprived of goods and services of good quality expected.”
The Tribunal ruled that by accepting payment with no reasonable basis to assert an intention to supply the engine required, Spares for Africa contravened section 47(2)(a) in that the supplier accepted payment for the goods with no intention to supply those goods.
The supplier further contravened the following provisions of the CPA:
- Section 54(1)(a) by keeping the vehicle for more than four years without any resolution.
- Section 54(1)(b) by failing to replace the incorrect engine despite the consumer giving it enough time to remedy this.
- Section 54(1)(c) by installing an engine that was meant for a Ford Fiesta and not a Ford Focus.
- Section 54(1)(d) by failing to return the vehicle to the consumer in as good a condition as it was when it was delivered for repairs.
The Tribunal imposed an administrative fine of R75 000 on the supplier. Spares for Africa’s conduct was declared prohibited, and it was ordered to refund the consumer R5 000.
The NCC’s acting commissioner, Hardin Ratshisusu, welcomed the Tribunal’s judgments in these cases.
“Both judgments send a strong message to suppliers that violations of the CPA will be prosecuted. The NCC believes that the Tribunal’s findings will deter other suppliers from engaging in prohibited conduct,” Ratshisusu said.
