FORMAL COMPLAINT: VEHICLE CONDITION, MISREPRESENTATION, AND LACK OF CONSIDERATION

We purchased a vehicle from Renault Tokai on 02 April 2026. This purchase was made with great excitement, as it coincided with the long weekend and celebrations for our son’s birthday. At the time of delivery, the vehicle appeared acceptable. We were informed upfront that:

The oxygen sensor still needed to be replaced The remote batteries needed replacement The boot cover was missing- this will also be added A full valet had not yet been done, and we could return the vehicle for this

We were also informed that the vehicle had to be fetched from the Paarden Eiland branch, and everything happened under time pressure because we wished to take delivery on the same day. Issues Discovered Shortly After Delivery As the long weekend approached, we inspected the car in our own personal time and discovered multiple problems that were not disclosed at point of sale:

The dashcam was not working at all and contained a broken memory card The window washer pipes were broken The vehicle was clearly not in the condition expected of a dealer-sold car

We alerted Motus / Renault Tokai on 12–13 April and brought the vehicle in. We explicitly stated that we were not happy with the condition of the vehicle and asked about a replacement. This was not even considered from the dealerships point of view.

Incorrect and Unfounded Allegations At this point, the manager began alleging that:

Rodents chewed through the vehicle wiring while the car was in our possession We may have gone away for the long weekend and rodents caused damage at our destination

Both statements are factually incorrect:

Our previous trade‑in vehicle was parked in the same location and never had rodent issues We did not go away that long weekend These claims are based on assumption, not evidence

The implication that we are responsible for rodent damage is unreasonable and unfair, especially considering:

The oxygen sensor was already faulty at delivery The damaged wiring directly explains the oxygen sensor failure The vehicle arrived from Paarden Eiland without a proper inspection

It is therefore our firm belief that the rodent damage existed prior to delivery, and that a thorough inspection was not conducted before the vehicle was handed over to us. Contradictions Regarding the Valet The manager further claimed a full valet had been done, which is incorrect. We were initially informed that:

The valet was still outstanding We could return the vehicle for the oxygen sensor, valet, remote batteries, and boot cover

Each time concerns were raised, responsibility was deflected back onto us, with the repeated statement that “we were happy when we received the car.” Naturally we were — defects beneath the surface only became apparent once proper checks were done after delivery. Current Situation – Lack of Coordination and Human Consideration On the agreed date, we delivered the car back to the dealership for repairs. Upon arrival, my husband was informed that:

The vehicle was not even booked in They would “ squeeze it in” No timeframe could be provided for repairs

This is despite the fact that we clearly communicated from the outset that we cannot be without a vehicle, as my husband relies on it to get to and from work. While transport home was arranged for my husband, no courtesy vehicle was offered for the repair period, leaving us without any means of transport. Emotional and Practical Impact The overall experience has been:

Dismissive Inhumane Deeply inconsiderate

It is distressing to feel that once the sale was completed, any issues became our problem alone, regardless of their origin. I feel belittled, unheard, and unfairly blamed for problems that were clearly present before delivery.

What We Expect Going Forward (Consumer Protection Act Compliance) In terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 68 of 2008, particularly Sections 55 and 56, we are entitled to receive goods that are of good quality, in working order, free of defects, and reasonably suitable for the purpose for which they are intended. This standard was clearly not met. Given the issues identified shortly after delivery and reported within a reasonable timeframe, we formally request the following:

A fair and objective reassessment of responsibility based on factual findings, not assumptions, in line with the CPA A clear and realistic written timeframe for the completion of all repairs Immediate assistance with mobility, as we cannot reasonably be left without transportation due to defects that were present at or before delivery A courtesy vehicle, which would be the ideal and appropriate remedy, while our vehicle remains out of service Or offering us a car replacement with the same price but in an immaculate condition with no faults or defects. Accountability for the vehicle having been delivered without a proper inspection, resulting in defects only becoming apparent after handover

In accordance with Section 56 of the CPA, when goods fail to meet the requirements of Section 55, consumers are entitled to appropriate relief. Leaving us without transport, while responsibility is disputed and repairs remain open‑ended, does not constitute fair or reasonable resolution. We have acted in good faith throughout and raised our concerns promptly. We now expect this matter to be resolved lawfully, fairly, and with due regard for the severe inconvenience caused.