False advertising, violating Consumer Protection Act

Complaint: WeBuyCars CPA violations when buying used vehicle on finance

Service Provider: We Buy Cars - Branch: Dome

Staff Involved: Tshepo Legong (Salesperson), Zander Bezuidenhout (Sales Manager), Almeri Grobler (F&I)

---

Over the last 2 weeks, we have been attempting to buy a USED vehicle:

During the process, we have experienced multiple issues with regards to transparency, honesty, and outright prohibitive behaviour under the CPA by We Buy Cars - Dome branch.

Short version - The advertised price is not the real price we were given on the offer to purchase, but rather R20K more than advertised, due to other "mandatory" fees. (CPA violation: Section 23: Disclosure of Price of Goods or Services and Section 29 & Section 41: Deceptive Marketing and False Representation) - Advertised condition was presented as "Certified" roadworthy, both on the listing and the condition report, but vehicle failed roadworthy and we are being told we must pay for the repairs (CPA Violation: Imp**** Warranty of Quality (Section 56) and Protection Against False & Misleading Marketing (Section 41) - A mandatory warranty fee is being forced into the deal, despite this very conduct by We Buy Cars being found as prohibitive under the CPA, when this same issue was brought before the NCC & Tribunal in 2025 - Despite multiple requests to be presented with the itemised line item costs making up the subtotal aggregate amounts for Delivery (R4200) and License and Registration (R2450), this was refused. Per the prescedent set by the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment of September 2025 on on-the-road (OTR) fees, the NCA, and the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) impose transparency obligations on dealerships to provide actual itemised costs for "admin" or "OTR" fees, and not thumbsuck a number without transparently advising the client of what is included with cost for each item, the total cost to finance those fees, as well as the options to pay the fees cash upfront or finance them etc.

ISSUES:

Advertised Price: Vehicle is advertised online and in-store as: "R 217 900 Incl. VAT Excl. Admin Fees" However when applying for finance, the F&I person and sales person included other "mandatory" fees, namely a 12 month warranty. According to the CPA, the advertised sales price must include any mandatory fees. We cannot be told R217 900.00, only for the real amount we need to pay actually coming to R217 000.00 PLUS R12 993.00 for "MANDATORY" warranty, plus "Admin" fee, plus Delivery fee, coming to the actual total price of R237 544.00 Real actual price is R19 600.00 more than the advertised price.

Advertised Condition & Condition Report: Vehicle is advertised with the following: A rated Certified "Vehicle has no roadworthy-relevant faults, has passed (or will pass) an official roadworthy inspection, and has a complete and up-to-date service history." We Buy Cars own vehicle listing states that the vehicle has a valid roadworthy or will pass an official roadworthy. However, on sending it for a roadworthy, it failed due to having control arms in poor condition. The salesperson then came back to us saying the car must be sent to a workshop for control arms to be replaced, and that we must pay the R5500.00 fee for parts and labour. We never agreed to this and told the salesperson the vehicle is clearly advertised according to their own rating system as "Certified" - being in roadworthy condition. The salesperson and sales manager came back to us, in an attempt to escape liability, claimed that the condition report is 50+ days old now and anything could have happened to the vehicle since then, causing damage to the control arms. (Yet they still advertise the vehicle as certified roadworthy). They then attempted to deflect liability by saying that the condition reported noted that the control arms condition was "as expected" and not "good". Here they are attempting to say that they disclosed the condition wasn't good, and might need repairs. However they never notes the condition as "poor" or "below average" as per their rating system. Despite this, the vehicle is still advertised as certified roadworthy. We then drew attention to the fact that if their certified roadworthy rating system did not actually mean the car has a roadworthy, or would pass roadworthy, then that brings into question every vehicle that has a certified rating and condition report with no roadworthy notes. If the condition reports and rating cannot be re**** on, then they have no value. Again, this is false and misleading advertising. We also stated that if there is a cost to get the vehicle roadworthy, that cost is to be borne by We Buy Cars, not the buyer. We Buy Cars then came back saying they would pay 50% of the control arm replacement cost, and we must pay the balance. We never agreed to pay this in full or share the costs.

Mandatory Warranty: Late 2025, National Consumer Commission & Tribunal found that We Buy Cars forcing buyers to take a mandatory warranty was "prohibitive behaviour under the Consumer Protection Act". This term in the We Buy Cars terms of sale conditions was found by the Tribunal to be prohibitive conduct under the CPA: "If the vehicle is financed and sold without manufacturer's warranty, we will require you to purchase an extended mechanical warranty, available separately and at an additional price, which will be used in the event of a failure or defect occurring in the vehicle after its delivery to you.". Despite We Buy Cars settling with 30+ buyers, and committing to updating their terms and processes to be compliant with the CPA, now almost a year later, We Buy Cars is still engaging in prohibitive behaviour by forcing buyers to take a mandatory warranty. The modus operandi here is to force the buyer to pay for their own aftermarket warranty, so that We Buy Cars does not have to shoulder their responsibility, and the cost of such, under the CPA's condition that dealers are obligated to repair/replace the vehicle or refund the buyer in the 6 months from date of sale. We brought this to the attention of the salesperson and F&I and were either ignored, or were told again its mandatory and part of their terms of sale. We were then told we could bring our own warranty - despite this still being prohibitive conduct under the CPA, whether forcing a mandatory warranty to be purchased from WBC or through other providers. But when we signed up for an outside warranty that meets their only 2 requirements: it must be active for 12 months, and have a minimum limit of R20k cover for major components, it was rejected because the warranty fee is being paid to the insurer on a monthly debit order. The sales person came back saying this is not allowed, it cannot be a warranty with monthly payments. Yet nowhere does it say this in their CPA violating warranty clauses in their terms of sale conditions. Any warranty can be active for 12 months, when paid upfront or by monthly payments, if the monthly payments are paid for 12 months post sale.

Thumbsuck Aggregate OTR/Admin fees without itemised costs: Despite multiple requests to be presented with the itemised line item costs making up the subtotal aggregate amounts for Delivery (R4200) and License and Registration (R2450), this was refused. Per the prescedent set by the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment of September 2025 on on-the-road (OTR) fees, the NCA, and the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) impose transparency obligations on dealerships to provide actual itemised costs for "admin" or "OTR" fees, and not thumbsuck a number without transparently advising the client of what is included with cost for each item, the total cost to finance those fees, as well as the options to pay the fees cash upfront or finance them etc.

Remedy Sought: Issue compliant OTP without "mandatory" warranty fee included, as this was already ruled on by the Tribunal as prohibitive conduct under the CPA regulations. Provide real itemised costs for all the line items making up the aggregate totals for "Admin" and "License and Registration" fees. Bring the car up to roadworthy condition, and own the liability and cost for this, as vehicle was advertised as such. Stop violating consumer rights and protections