# Relationship or not #

# MBSA / JOHN WILLIAMS MOTORS BLOEMFONTEIN NMI GROUP / MIOSA RELATIONSHIP OR NOT#

Customer never said there was no invoice as documented in your recommendation letter the complaint form as attached state clearly that the customer says no receipt for money paid and in email chains before you is the invoice issued to the customer.

Attached is the diagnostic test report of 7/ 8 February 2022 confirmed as same by the nearest dealership ( service manager, dealership principal and crew are herein copied). There is no mention of human error on the car by the nearest dealership to date Except for an internal component of the manufacturer that malfunctioned. The screen shot is before you and reattached.

The BACKDATED OTP by the sales woman at John Williams motors BLOEMFONTEIN is also attached as it was initially before you. The dealership is herewith copied.

Kevin, customer's request made yesterday, 26 04 2022 falls within the time frame set in your recommendation

Please CLARIFY AND PROVIDE the details of the cost imp**** in your recommendation please note that both dealers are herein copied transparently.

The discussion at hand refers.

The questionable letter of the dealer's attorney remain unclariefied in the dispute

despite submissions before you.

The matter before the MIOSA is that of the breakdown of a PREVIOUSLY REPAIRED "BRAND NEW" Mercedes Benz C200 of 2022 year model that occurred on day 10 following manufacturers internal component malfunction.

The breakdown has been confirmed to be as a result of manufacturers malfunctioned component, there is no human error on the car communicated to the customer to date.

The nearest dealership that diagnosed the cause of breakdown is said to have apparently repaired the car and no human error concern raised in the questionable letter has been reported to the customer to date.

Your reccomendation speaks about right to deduct cost. Please clarify and provide th details of this cost noting the above paragraph in relation to the REAL matter at hand.

With respect to the correspondence addressed to you yesterday in which relevant parties were copied, the error pronouncement in your email below is admission of guilt that further confirm a misconduct and strengthen the fact that the award is vilified.

It is therefore in your best interest to rescind the award yourself (THE ARBITRATOR ) AND replace it in accordance with the customer's request for a replacement car.

Thank you for your email. The model type is irrelevant and considered a typo as some of the documents submitted reflects a E200, being the trade in vehicle. The contents of the letter remains the same and the resolution thereof. We do not recommend a replacement vehicle, but rather the cancellation as directed on the recommendation letter.

As directed by The explanations above vilified the award.

Recommendation by the MIOSA: With the above in mind the office of the MIOSA concludes that we cannot support the expectations of the complainant as stipulated in her submission to have the said vehicle replaced. However, it is the MIOSA’s considered opinion that the cancellation of the sales agreement with the above terms is the best outcome for both parties involved. It should be noted that the respondent has the right to deduct costs as suggested in their offer, in terms of section 20(6) of the Consumer Protection Act No. 68 of 2008. The respondent should implement the cancelation process within fifteen (15) working days upon receipt of this letter.

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

Senior Case Manager