- A buyer discovers the VW Golf she was assured was accident-free had an oil leak, and Volkswagen later confirmed prior accident damage.
- High Court rules that Sandton Repo Cars’ ongoing refusal to collect the unsafe vehicle and issue a refund amounts to continuing conduct under section 116.
- Judgment compels the supplier to refund R459 900, pay a penalty, and take responsibility for selling an unsafe and defective vehicle.
When she paid R459 900 for a 2018 Volkswagen Golf from Sandton Repo Cars (PTY) Ltd, the buyer thought she was getting a clean, accident-free vehicle.
Within days, the car began leaking oil, which was alarming. A Volkswagen inspection later confirmed that the vehicle had been in an accident and advised that it was unsafe to drive.
Her lawyers quickly informed Sandton Repo Cars that she was claiming her rights under section 56(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. The supplier refused to collect the car or issue a refund, insisting that she deliver it at her own risk and that usage costs be calculated first.
The National Consumer Commission referred the case to the National Consumer Tribunal, which initially found that Sandton Repo Cars had violated Sections 51(1)(b) and 56(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.
The High Court dismissed the supplier’s claim that the complaint had prescribed, stating that “the complaint in this matter arose not only in the supply of defective goods but also in the refusal by the appellant to collect the vehicle at its own cost and make the refund.”
Court scrutinises the ongoing refusal
The High Court highlighted the ongoing nature of the misconduct, saying, “The refusal persists. The vehicle remains uncollected by the appellant, and there has been no refund.” It further explained why the supplier could not rely on the Prescription Act, saying, “Section 116 does not contain the provisions relating to knowledge of cause and delay and interruption or the deeming provisions which one finds in the Prescription Act.” The ruling confirmed that the refusal to act is a “course of conduct as contemplated in section 116.”
The National Consumer Commission , which referred the matter to the National Consumer Tribunal, welcomed the judgment. In a statement, Acting Commissioner Hardin Ratshisusu said, “The NCC welcomes this judgment, especially as it clarifies the jurisdiction of the NCC to investigate and prosecute continuing conduct that remains unresolved.”
He added that the ruling prevents suppliers from stalling, stating, “Consumers will now be able to file complaints in circumstances where suppliers unduly delay providing redress, hoping that such complaints would lapse.” Commissioner Ratshisusu also noted the broader implications, emphasising, “Section 116 of the CPA is applied in a way that fully protects consumers.”
Consequences for Sandton Repo Cars
The High Court’s ruling ensures that Sandton Repo Cars must refund R459 900, pay a R100 000 administrative penalty, and take responsibility for the unsafe vehicle it sold. Commissioner Ratshisusu summarised the impact on consumers: “Consumers can now have confidence that defective and unsafe products will not go unaddressed, and that the law supports their rights.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
