- Woman reclaims her Hyundai H1 after it was kept in storage without her consent.
- Court rejects inflated storage fee claim and finds cession agreement an afterthought.
- Judgment affirms ownership rights and protects consumers from unfair practices.
When mechanics refused to release her Hyundai H1 and a storage company demanded hundreds of thousands of rand in fees she never agreed to, Johannesburg resident Carol Behane turned to the courts.
The South Gauteng High Court ruled firmly in her favour, ordering her car returned without any storage charges and dismissing the companies’ legal manoeuvres as unfounded.
The judgment in Behane v ATE Automotive Repairs and Others closes a bitter two-year dispute and delivers an important message about consumer protection, fairness, and the rights of vehicle owners.
A car trapped in legal limbo
Behane bought her Hyundai H1 in December 2021. Soon after, it began breaking down. In October 2022, she took it to ATE Automotive Repairs, who said a loose wire was the problem and quoted R1 000 to fix it. Within weeks, the car failed again.
In January 2023 she returned to ATE, but when another fault emerged, the workshop insisted it was not their responsibility. They pointed to a report blaming contaminated oil in the turbo and refused to repair the vehicle. Frustrated, she sought help from the Motor Industry Ombudsman, but her claim was rejected.
By June 2023, ATE emailed her a repair quote of R17 261, but crucially, there was still no mention of storage fees. Determined to collect her car, she went to their premises before the quoted deadline, even bringing police officers with her. To her shock, the vehicle was already gone, transferred without her consent to Abandoned Vehicle and Truck Solutions, a storage company she had never dealt with.
Demands she never agreed to
Once her car was in storage, Behane found herself cornered. The storage company insisted she sign documents before confirming their address and later claimed she owed daily fees for “safekeeping.” Within months, they alleged the bill had ballooned to more than R200 000.
Still paying off her financed vehicle, Behane was distraught. “I never agreed to my car being placed in storage, and I cannot afford endless fees for something I didn’t ask for,” she said in her court papers.
Court unmasks after-the-fact paperwork
In court, the companies relied on a cession agreement signed between them on 14 July 2023, a week after Behane had already attempted to recover her car. They claimed this gave the storage company a lien, the right to hold the vehicle until she paid the alleged debt.
But Acting Judge LM du Plessis dismantled their case. He noted that the invoices produced were inconsistent, with one bizarrely naming the customer as “Abandoned” instead of Behane. These documents, he said, were created after the fact in a bid to justify keeping her car.
The judge stressed that the cession agreement was not binding on Behane and could not extinguish her rights. He affirmed the principle of rei vindicatio, the legal protection that allows an owner to reclaim their property, regardless of claims made by third parties.
Victory for ownership rights
The High Court ordered that Behane’s Hyundai be returned within 10 days, free of any storage charges. If the companies failed to comply, the sheriff was authorised to seize the car and hand it back to her. The court also ordered ATE Automotive Repairs and the storage company to pay her legal costs.
Conviction.co.za
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
