MOISA DON"T CARE ABOUT CUSTOMERS.

My case with MOISA is not investigated and I am misinterpreted with the Motor dealer Auto Extreme. They don't care about all the proof that I send them. They send me a letter and "Case Closed". Easy way out. They ignore proof that I send them and keep on telling me that I contravene certain Sections and regulations. The only way that they can say the dealer is not liable. Here is my letter that MIOSA send me. Dear Mr Swart,

Re: Auto Xtreme, NISSAN QASHQAI, E

You are kindly referred to the complaint lodged with the office of the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA).

The MIOSA represents neither industry nor the consumer. It utilises good engineering practice, good customer care practice, good legal practice, and natural justice as a basis in its deliberations.

Parties: You are kindly referred to a case lodged with the office of the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) on the 11th of March 2020 by Mr DM Swart (herein referred to as the consumer) against Auto Xtreme (Herein referred to as the supplier).

Summary of transaction: The consumer entered into a purchase agreement with the supplier on the 4th of December 2020 and purchased a used Nissan Qashqai 2015 model, with 119 995 kilometres on the cluster.

Complainant allegations: According to the consumer from the day he took delivery of the said vehicle he has been experiencing problems with it. The consumer noticed that the wheel alignment was out on the vehicle and the spare wheel was damaged. The consumer was informed that the rims on the vehicle were buckled. The front tyres are commercial use tyres. The consumer returned the vehicle to the supplier and informed them about the tyres and rims. In addition the consumer made the supplier aware of the excessive play on the gear lever. The supplier sent the vehicle to a repairer and the rims and tyres were attended to. However, they did not attend to the gear lever and spare wheel. The consumer stated he drove the vehicle from Pretoria to George, during his journey he heard a loud noise emanating from the front wheel. He stopped but could not see anything wrong and he carried on driving very slow with the noise still present. The consumer took the vehicle to a manufacturing dealer who found that the rear brake caliper was loose. The defect was repaired. The consumer then had the said vehicle washed and noticed that the windscreen was leaking. The consumer took the vehicle to have the windscreen rubbers replaced and was shown rust marks on the vehicle. While driving the said vehicle the consumer noticed a rattling sound from the steering colum. He approached a mechanic who pointed out that the outer tie rod ends rubbers were completely broken and needed to be replaced. The consumer gave the go ahead to have the repairs done. On the 29th of December 2020 the consumer drove with the vehicle to Herm**** and on his way back the vehicle cut out and he had to call for assistance but the vehicle started again and he continued on his journey.

Respondent's response: According to the supplier the vehicle passed the roadworthy test as required by law prior to the consumer taking ownership of the said vehicle. The consumer returned the vehicle with bent rims and tyre related concerns. The supplier stated that no dealership is responsible for tyres and rims after delivery. As a goodwill gesture they deciced to assist the consumer with the tyres and rims as per his complaint. The supplier is of the opinion that damage was inflicted by consumer yet they dediced to assist on a goodwill basis. Vehicle was inspected again and handed in perfect working order to the consumer. Weeks after the consumer took the vehicle after he sent the supplier his complaint stating that he took the vehicle to other workshops for repairs, the supplier did not give their consent for repairs to be carried out by a third party. In Mr Swart's letter to the MIOSA it is clear that he took the vehicle to numerous workshops without the suppliers consent or informing the supplier about it as the vehicle was still within the six month warranty period. According to the supplier the moment the consumer took the vehicle to a third party the warranty with Auto Xtreme became null and void.

Investigation by the MIOSA: The MIOSA has studied both submissions and documentation made available to us. According to Section 55 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 68 of 2008, except to the extent contemplated in subsection (6), every consumer has a right to receive goods that— (a) are reasonably suitable for the purposes for which they are generally intended (b) are of good quality, in good working order and free of any defects; (c) will be useable and durable for a reasonable period of time, having regard to the use to which they would normally be put and to all the surrounding circumstances of their supply; and (d) comply with any applicable standards set under the Standards Act, 1993 (Act No. 29 of 1993), or any other public regulation. Section 55 (6) of the same Act states that Subsection (2)(a) and (b) do not apply to a trans action if the consumer— (a) has been expressly informed that particular goods were offered in a specific condition; and (b) has expressly agreed to accept the goods in that condition, or knowingly acted in a manner consistent with accepting the goods in that condition. The imp**** six month warranty provided by Section 56 Subsection 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 was invalidated in terms of Subsection 1 as the goods (vehicle) were altered contrary to the instructions, or after leaving the control of the producer, importer, distributor or the retailer as the case may be. Although the concerns raised arose within the parameters of the stipulated warranty period, according to the consumer, he took the said vehicle to a third party to have work done on the vehicle. The consumer’s actions have exonerated the supplier of liability in terms of the above-mentioned Act.

Recommendation by the MIOSA: With the above in mind we resolve that we cannot support the expectation of the consumer that the supplier must cancel the deal. We regard this matter closed.

VERY IMPORTANT NOTICE

Should the consumer decide to lodge a complaint with the National Consumer Commission (NCC) a copy of the MIOSA case file, free of charge, will be supp**** to the consumer which must be filed with the complaint at the offices of the NCC. In the event of no further communication being received from the consumer within 7 days from date of the recommendation letter the MIOSA file will be closed.

Yours sincerely

AB Swarts Case Manager R Wright Case Manager

This letter is signed via electronic signature

CC: Auto Xtreme Email: ***

MFC/Nedbank - Customer Care ***