- Wingfield Motors sold a defective Ford Focus and refused to repair or refund, despite clear CPA obligations.
- Lambons withheld a faulty GWM Steed, ignored a Compliance Notice, and demanded storage fees from the consumer.
- High Court rulings affirm the NCC’s authority and send a clear message: suppliers who defy the law will face consequences.
It took just three days for the dream to unravel. A consumer in the Western Cape had purchased a Ford Focus RS 2.3 EcoBoost AWD 5dr 2017 from Wingfield Motors for R568 000. The vehicle was defective. Repairs were estimated at over R62 000. But Wingfield Motors refused to fix it.
When the consumer asked for help, they were met with silence. When they asked for a refund, they were met with refusal. The supplier’s stance was not just unethical, but it was unlawful. Under section 56(2) of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), suppliers are required to repair or refund defective goods. Wingfield Motors ignored this obligation.
The consumer turned to the National Consumer Commission (NCC), which referred the matter to the National Consumer Tribunal (NCT). In May 2024, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the consumer. Wingfield Motors appealed.
The Western Cape Division of the High Court dismissed the appeal with costs. It ordered Wingfield Motors to refund the full purchase price and pay an administrative fine of R50 000. In its ruling, the court stated, “But for the intervention of the NCC and the Tribunal, the customer would have been left out in the cold. And that would have completely undermined the provisions of the CPA.”
The judgment was it was a restoration of dignity. The court affirmed that Wingfield’s refusal to settle the matter at the repair stage was “detrimental to the very purpose of the CPA.”
A GWM Steed, a withheld vehicle, and 18 months of defiance
In Kimberley, another consumer faced a similar ordeal. They purchased a GWM Steed 2.5 TCI single-cab 4×4 from Lambons (Pty) Ltd. Within a month, the vehicle showed multiple defects. The Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa recommended repairs. Lambons refused.
The consumer approached the High Court, which ordered the supplier to comply. The NCC issued a Compliance Notice under section 112 of the CPA, giving Lambons 30 days to fix the vehicle or refund the consumer. Lambons ignored it.
Instead of complying, Lambons withheld the vehicle and demanded storage fees. They only filed an appeal 18 months later, well outside the legal timeframe. The High Court dismissed the appeal, fined Lambons R200 000, and issued a punitive cost order.
The court described Lambons’ conduct as “…contemptuous and obstructive … towards the Commission and Tribunal throughout the proceedings.”
It further ruled that the Compliance Notice issued by the NCC was “lawful, rational and procedurally fair.”
Justice, delivered, but only after intervention
The NCC’s Acting Commissioner, Hardin Ratshisusu, welcomed both judgments, saying, “These judgments of the High Court show that firms that have no regard to consumer rights will face consequences. The judgments should deter suppliers from engaging in the same conduct and rather address and resolve consumer complaints expeditiously.”
Get your news on the go. Clickhereto follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
