Tribunal fines dealer R75 000 for wrong engine, another R20 000 for repairs

The National Consumer Tribunal has fined a scrap yard dealer R75 000 for having the wrong engine installed in a car and another workshop R20 000 for repairs of substandard quality.

The Tribunal found that Spares for Africa CC contravened sections 47(2)(a) and 54(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and imposed an administrative fine of R75 000. In addition, the Tribunal declared Spares for Africa’s conduct prohibited and ordered it to also refund the consumer R5 000 that he paid upfront.

According to the National Consumer Commission (NCC), it received and investigated a complaint from a consumer who enquired about a 2017 Ford Focus engine at Spares for Africa that gave him a quote for just above R25 000.

The consumer made an upfront payment of R5 000 for the engine and its installation. Spares for Africa CC collected the vehicle from the consumer on 20 September 2019 and took it to a third-party workshop that Spares for Africa claimed it owned. It took nine months to install the engine.

When the consumer eventually got his car back, he queried its performance. The workshop then confirmed that it fitted a Ford Fiesta engine instead of a Ford Focus engine as required. The workshop did not give the consumer a quotation and also failed to ask for his approval to install other related parts.

The workshop did give the consumer an invoice for over R19 000 for additional parts.

ALSO READ: Used car dealer instructed to refund consumer, court confirms Tribunal’s finding

Spares for Africa did not fit the correct engine even after complaint

The NCC says even after the consumer raised this issue with Spares for Africa, that did not dispute that the third party fitted an incorrect engine; the correct engine was never fitted, and the car remained with Spares for Africa CC for over four years.

The Tribunal, in its ruling, noted that Spares for Africa’s conduct was contrary to the spirit of the CPA in sections 4(4)(b), 15(2)(a), 21(e), 29(a) and 41(1)(c). It said it is disappointed 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.

In addition, the Tribunal indicated that the conduct of Spares for Africa is serious and has severely prejudiced the consumer. The consumer was deprived of expected goods and services of good quality.

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) because it accepted payment for the goods with no intention to supply them.

ALSO READ: Consumer Tribunal finds another three used car dealers guilty of prohibited conduct

Contravention of CPA to keep car for four years

Spares for Africa also contravened Section 54(1)(a) by keeping the vehicle for more than four years without any resolution. This sub-section provides that when a supplier undertakes to perform any services for a consumer, the consumer has the right to expect the timely performance and completion of those services and timely notice of any unavoidable delay in the performance of the services.

The Tribunal also found that the scrap yard contravened Section 54(1)(b) of the CPA by failing to replace the incorrect engine despite the consumer giving them enough time to remedy this. This subsection provides that the service must be performed in a manner and of the quality that consumers are generally entitled to expect.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that Spares for Africa contravened Section 54(1)(c) of the CPA by installing an engine that was meant for a Ford Fiesta and not a Ford Focus and 54(1)(d) by failing to return the vehicle to the consumer in as good a condition as when it was delivered for repairs.

ALSO READ: Consumer Tribunal fines two used car dealers and orders R1 million total refund

Supertech Motor Holdings failed to repair to expected standard

In another case, the Tribunal found that Supertech Motor Holdings, trading as BMW, contravened section 54(1)(b) of the CPA by failing to repair a vehicle to the expected standard.

The NCC says a consumer took his vehicle to Supertech for repairs and paid R19 974.47. While Supertech repaired the vehicle, the consumer was not satisfied with the repairs.

The Tribunal found that by failing to repair the vehicle to the expected standard, Supertech contravened Section 54(1)(b). Supertech’s conduct was declared prohibited, and the Tribunal ordered it to ensure that all repairs the consumer paid for were properly conducted. The Tribunal further imposed an administrative fine of R20 000 on Supertech.

Hardin Ratshisusu, acting commissioner at the NCC, says the NCC welcomes the two judgments of the Tribunal, as both judgements 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.”