Abuse of powers

On 13 January, I purchased a 2011 BMW 320i at the Midstream branch. At the time of purchasing the vehicle, the car did not have any warning lights or whatsoever.

On 17 April 2022, I experienced a mechanical breakdown with the car. The car could not start. I replaced the battery, however, the car still could not start.

On 22 April 2022, I lodged a complaint with We Buy Cars using their online complaint platform. On 26 April 2022, We Buy Cars responded to my complaint and refused to refund me the purchase price of the vehicle in terms of section 56(2) of the Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”).

In its response, We Buy Cars referred to the Sales Agreement and section 49 of the CPA for their refusal to refund me the purchase price for the car. We Buy Cars advise mw to refer the matter to MIOSA if I am unhappy with its decision.

On the same day, I lodged a complaint against We Buy Cars with MIOSA. While the complaint was ongoing and on the basis that We Buy Cars refused to refund me the purchase price for the car, I fixed the car with BMW Midrand.

On 17 May 2022, We Buy Cars responded to MIOSA’s complaint. In its response, We Buy Cars stated, and I quote: “It is important to note that the Customer affected repairs to the Vehicle. These repairs were affected without authorisation from We Buy Cars, therefore the imp**** warranty offered of Section 56 of the CPA is void.” On this basis, MIOSA made its recommendation against me.

I am concerned that on 22 April 2022 when I made a request to return the car, We Buy Cars re**** on the Sales Agreement. However, when We Buy Cars received the complaint from MIOSA, they noted that I have fixed the car therefore I have waived my rights under section 56(2) of the CPA.

I can confirm that We Buy Cars is disingenuous, dishonorable, and abusing its corporate powers because when I made a request to return the car for a refund, the car was not fixed at that stage.