MFC (Most Frustrating Finance)Delayed Responses and Negligence in a Serious Vehicle Dispute

MFC – Delayed, Negligent Handling of a Defective Vehicle Dispute

I am extremely dissatisfied with MFC’s handling of a dispute involving a defective vehicle financed through them.

Key Facts and Dates The vehicle was financed via MFC and is legally owned by the bank. The vehicle was officially sold and delivered on 20 September 2025. Due to acknowledged defects, the vehicle was returned to the dealer on 22 September 2025.

From that date onward, I was largely deprived of use of the vehicle. Attorneys acting on my behalf made formal approaches to MFC over the following weeks and months.

Despite this, responses from MFC were delayed, inadequate, or absent. The vehicle was only returned to me on 2 December 2025, after which it was found unsafe to drive.

Throughout this period: Instalments continued to be debited Insurance costs continued I was paying for a vehicle I could not safely use.

This approach is deeply concerning, particularly in light of the Supreme Court of Appeal decision in Alta van Niekerk v WesBank (December 2025), which confirmed that finance institutions cannot simply distance themselves from defective vehicle sales when the financed asset does not meet Consumer Protection Act standards.

Despite owning the vehicle, MFC failed to:

Act with urgency Protect its asset Ensure fair treatment of the consumer

The prolonged delays and lack of decisive action give the impression of negligence and a disregard for consumer rights.

This experience has resulted in financial prejudice, unnecessary stress, and a complete loss of confidence in MFC’s customer service and governance.