The Farce of ‘Diagnostics’: When Brand-New Clutches Suddenly Wear Out

1. Incorrect and Contradictory Diagnosis Your email repeats the claim that the vehicle “had no clutch,” that the clutch “contaminated” and “not driveable,” and that the clutch “would have still needed replacement regardless of starter failure.” This assertion is factually incorrect and contradicted by verifiable evidence: ✔ The clutch system was fully replaced on 31 August 2025 Wheel Alignment *** Includes: • Labour • Clutch Kit • Clutch Slave (Concentric) • Clutch Master • Skim Flywheel Total paid: R14,418.40 This was only 2 months before the breakdown. There was no clutch wear, and no grounds for your “wear and tear” claim. ✔ Actual issue confirmed by independent technicians Both invoices from Vaal Wheel Alignment confirm the true fault: Tax Invoice IN358868 • Starter labour • Labour to fit concentric slave • Diagnostic strip & quote • Alignment PLUS the cost of the starter unit itself — R2,950.00 Your technician claimed that the starter “cannot be confirmed” because it was removed. However, the reason it was removed is because Wheel Alignment had already confirmed it was the fault, replaced it, and the car has since been operating normally. That proves your original diagnostic was wrong. ________________________________________ 2. Your Claim That I “Declined” Repairs Is Misleading I did not decline repairs. I removed the vehicle because I could not afford an inflated quotation based on an incorrect diagnosis. Your wording is being used to avoid liability and warranty obligations. ________________________________________ 3. Your Statement That the Starter “Could Not Be Tested” Is Unreasonable You demanded the vehicle back to test whether the starter was the fault, knowing full well: • The vehicle could not start • The diagnostic you provided was incorrect • The real defective starter had to be replaced for the vehicle to be mobile • By the time you requested the vehicle back, the starter had already been removed for replacement • You later claimed you could not proceed because it was stripped — after you asked for it to be returned This circular reasoning is not consistent with the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). It constitutes procedural unfairness and unreasonable supplier conduct under Sections 48 and 54. ________________________________________ 4. Windscreen Damage Likely Caused by Repeated “Up and Down” Transport Due to Renault’s incorrect diagnostic and refusal to assist, I had to transport the vehicle repeatedly between workshops. This is when the windscreen crack occurred — an avoidable cost directly resulting from Renault’s actions. Your continued insistence that I “declined” repairs is a distraction from the real issue — your dealership produced a diagnostic claiming that a brand-new clutch, replaced barely two months earlier, had somehow failed due to ‘wear and tear.’ That is the point you are conveniently avoiding. A diagnostic that identifies a recently replaced clutch as defective is not a diagnostic!!

And if Motus is so confident in this assessment, then where is the diagnostic proof? Where is the report, the readings, the technical evidence showing how your team concluded that a new clutch was worn out? You have presented absolutely nothing. Until you can produce documentation, your claim reads less like a professional finding and more like an excuse to justify an inflated quotation.

For the sake of clarity: the discussion with Bianca confirmed that the quotation was exorbitantly high, and the agreement was that I should take the vehicle and return when I could afford it. There was no refusal, no rejection, and no decline — merely a pause due to cost, which you are now retroactively misrepresenting.