Poor Service from Audi SA and Audi East London

2012 Audi Q5 – Charged R30,000 for Repairs Despite Evidence of Severe Internal Gearbox Failure

I am extremely disappointed with the way my matter has been handled by Audi Centre East London and Audi South Africa.

I took my 2012 Audi Q5 to Audi Centre East London after a gearbox warning light appeared. I was informed that Audi follows an approved diagnostic and repair process for this type of fault. According to Audi, the first step is a mechatronic repair, which includes draining and inspecting the gearbox oil.

During this process, Audi's own diagnosis confirmed excessive metallic contamination (metal shavings) in the gearbox oil, severe clutch wear, and internal gearbox damage. Following consultation with Audi South Africa, the dealership concluded that the gearbox required complete replacement.

Despite these findings, Audi proceeded with the mechatronic repair, gearbox oil replacement and related work at a cost of approximately R30,000. While replacing the contaminated oil removed the visible contamination, it did not and could not address the underlying internal gearbox damage already identified in Audi's diagnosis.

My complaint is not that Audi failed to follow its internal repair process. My concern is that once severe internal gearbox damage had been confirmed, continuing with further repairs offered little realistic prospect of resolving the underlying fault and should have been halted.

After the repairs were completed, Audi informed me that the gearbox still required replacement at an estimated cost of approximately R500,000. This was later reduced to around R300,000, but both amounts far exceed the retail value of the vehicle, which is approximately R110,000.

Unable to afford a replacement gearbox, I obtained an independent assessment from another gearbox specialist. Their findings confirmed clutch failure, internal gearbox wear consistent with metal contamination, and the need for a major gearbox repair or rebuild, effectively validating Audi's original diagnosis.

After 6–8 weeks of engagement with Audi Centre East London and Audi South Africa, I received their final response refusing my request for a refund on the basis that labour was performed and parts were fitted.

I do not dispute that work was carried out. My concern is whether it is reasonable to charge a customer approximately R30,000 for repairs after severe internal gearbox damage had already been identified, particularly when those repairs neither addressed nor could resolve the underlying failure.

As a long-standing Audi owner, I expected better customer care and a solution that reflected the realities of the diagnosis. I hope Audi South Africa will reconsider its position and resolve this matter fairly.