The National Consumer Commission (NCC) welcomes the latest decisions by the National Consumer Tribunal (Tribunal) against Supertech Motor Holdings (PTY) LTD, trading as BMW and Spares for Africa CC. The NCC received and investigated the consumers’ complaints where they alleged that both suppliers had contravened provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
The NCC’s investigation revealed that Supertech Motor Holdings has contravened section 54(1)(b) of the CPA. This was after the consumer took their vehicle to Supertech for repairs and paid R19 974.47 (nineteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy-four Rand forty-seven cents). While Supertech repaired the vehicle, the consumer was not satisfied with the repairs.
Section 54(1)(b) of the CPA requires that “ when a supplier undertakes to perform any services for or on behalf of the consumer, the consumer has the right to the performance of the services in a manner and quality that persons are generally entitled to expect.”
The Tribunal found that by failing to repair the vehicle to the expected standard, Supertech contravened section 54(1)(b). Their conduct was declared prohibited. The supplier was ordered to ensure that all repairs paid for by the consumer were properly conducted. The Tribunal further imposed an administrative fine of R20 000.00 (twenty thousand Rand).
Similarly, in the matter of Spares for Africa CC, the Tribunal imposed an administrative fine of R75 000.00 (seventy-five thousand Rand) against the supplier. This was after the supplier was found to have contravened sections 47(2)(a) and 54(1)(a) of the CPA. Spare for Africa’s conduct was declared prohibited and was ordered to also refund the consumer R5 000 (five thousand Rand).
The NCC received and investigated the complaint raising allegations of contravention of the CPA. This was after the consumer enquired about the 2017 Ford Focus engine. The supplier gave the consumer a quote for just above R25 000.00 (twenty-five thousand Rand). The NCC’s investigation revealed that the consumer made an upfront payment of R5 000 (five thousand Rand) for the purchase of an engine and its installation. Spares for Africa CC collected the vehicle from the consumer on 20 September 2019 and took it to Rautomec, a third-party workshop. The supplier claimed they owned this workshop. It took Rautomec nine months to install the engine.
Upon test-driving the vehicle, the consumer queried the performance of the vehicle. Rautomec then confirmed that they fitted the Ford Fiest engine instead of the Ford Focus as required. Rautomec did not provide the consumer with the quotations for acceptance and also, did not seek approval to install other related parts, Rautomec furnished the consumer with an invoice for over R19 000 (nineteen thousand Rand) for additional parts.
Even after the consumer raised this issue with Spares for Africa CC, who did not dispute that the third party fitted an incorrect engine, the correct engine was never fitted, and the vehicle remained with Spares for Africa CC for over four years.
Handing down its ruling, the Tribunal noted that “ Spares for Africa CC’s conduct was contrary to the spirit of the CPA espoused under sections 4(4)(b), 15(2)(a), 21(e), 29(a) and 41(1)(c). The Tribunal raised its disappointment 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. The Tribunal further indicated that the conduct of Spares for Africa CC is serious and has severely prejudiced the consumer. The consumer has been deprived of goods and services of good quality expected.”
The Tribunal ruled that “by accepting payment with no reasonable basis to assert an intention to supply the engine required, Spares for Africa CC has contravened section 47(2)(a) in that the supplier accepted payment for the goods with no intention to supply those goods. The supplier further contravened the following section: 54(1)(a) by keeping the vehicle for more than four years without any resolution, 54(1)(b) by failing to replace the incorrect engine despite the consumer giving them enough time to remedy this, 54(1)(c) 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.”
The NCC’s Acting Commissioner Mr Hardin Ratshisusu said “The NCC welcomes the two judgements of the NCT, 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.”
ENDS
View/Download the full Media Statement: NCC Welcomes Judgements against Two Suppliers below: