Know Your Rights When Buying a Used Car

Two recent decisions by the National Consumer Tribunal have reaffirmed the rights of consumers under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) when it comes to buying a used car from a dealer. Dealers selling used vehicles are essentially under the same obligations to consumers as those selling new ones, and any conditions or warranties they provide do not override the requirements of the Act.

What does the Act require?

The CPA says the consumer has the right to receive goods that are “reasonably suitable for their intended purpose, are of good quality, in good working order, free of defects, and usable and durable for a reasonable time”. It also states that, “within six months of delivery of any goods to a consumer, the consumer may return those goods to the supplier, without any penalty and at the supplier’s risk and expense”. It does not distinguish between new and used, or second-hand, goods. However, the Act applies only to goods bought from a business; it does not apply to private sales.

Case 1: Nolly Motors

In August, the National Consumer Tribunal ruled against Nolly Motors in Kempton Park and in favour of Ms M, who bought a 2013 Audi A4 from the dealer in 2022. Ms M lodged a complaint with the National Consumer Council (NCC) about the vehicle being defective, and the NCC investigated the matter.

According to a release by the NCC, its investigation revealed that Ms M had bought the car from Nolly Motors for R146 000 on 15 April 2022 and experienced defects two days later. Among them were a leaking overflow tank causing overheating, poorly fitted suspension made of substandard parts, a brake fluid leak, and worn tires.

“The consumer informed the supplier of the defects and requested that Nolly Motors repair the vehicle. This request was not attended to. On 29 April 2022, the consumer further informed the supplier of her intention to cancel the sales agreement and request a full refund; however, the supplier refused to cancel the transaction. This forced the consumer to pay for repairs,” the NCC report says.

The Tribunal found that by refusing to repair the vehicle or refund the consumer the purchase price, Nolly Motors had contravened various sections of the CPA. Although their terms stipulated that the car was sold “as is” and without warranty, such terms did not override the consumer protections enshrined in the CPA.

Handing down the judgement, the Tribunal ruled that the supplier must collect the vehicle from Ms M at its own expense and refund her the full purchase price of R146 000.

“The judgment reaffirms the importance of suppliers to respect consumer rights in the marketplace. This judgment should serve as a deterrent to other suppliers from engaging in similar conduct,” said the NCC’s Acting Commissioner, Hardin Ratshisusu.

Case 2: Wheeler Dealer

The Tribunal also recently ruled in favour of Ms A, ordering Wheeler Dealer Auto Sales in Strand, Western Cape, to pay her R32 225 plus interest and legal costs for repairs to a defective Opel Vivaro they sold her in March 2022.

Within a week of buying the car, Ms A had to replace a faulty alternator. By June she noticed an oil leak and had the car serviced by a third party, ST Motors. After driving it 10km, it broke down. ST Motors then found that the car had a blown head gasket and a cracked engine block. After getting a quote for R72 225, she applied the third-party warranty covering repairs up to R40 000 and asked Wheeler Dealer to cover the shortfall, which was refused.

She turned to the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa, but her complaint was dismissed for the reason that the third-party repairs had voided the implied six-month warranty under the CPA.

The case went to the National Consumer Tribunal, where Ms A was represented by Gerhard van der Merwe from Trudie Broekmann Attorneys.

In a LinkedIn post, Van der Merwe said: “The cracked engine block and blown head gasket were defects that arose within six months of delivery and therefore fell under the statutory warranty under the CPA. The Tribunal emphasised that a contractual warranty cannot oust or replace this statutory warranty. It also confirmed that the mere involvement of a third-party repairer does not necessarily void the implied warranty, as argued by the supplier, and that it is only voided where the goods have been altered contrary to instructions,” Van der Merwe says.

He says the message is clear: “Statutory warranties are robust. Suppliers cannot hide behind contractual warranties, and evasive conduct may expose them not only to liability, but also to costs.”