WESKUS FORD VREDENBURG

The letter below is the 5th letter I'm writing to GRANT from WESKUS FORD VREDENBURG

Ford Dealerships 18 September 2020

Dear Sir/Madam

This is the final letter before I officially place legal representation on record and will claim for costs of their services from the Ford Dealerships.

I was sold a vehicle that was in an accident. I was not advised of this when purchasing the vehicle. It does not matter whether the dealership claims to have known about this (if they did not know, it simply proves negligence from the dealership).

I have requested that the car be replaced - I was told that this cannot be done by the dealership. I was desperate and asked that it be repaired and the value of what a vehicle that had not been in an accident be provided to me. Still no assistance.

I approached a different Ford Dealership and they could not believe this was the service I had received from Weskus Ford. They contacted the branch…and then nothing. No communication. Once again the matter has been stalled.

Meanwhile, I am driving in a vehicle that is not safe – as mentioned by the reports I have emailed and as you all are aware.

I deem it necessary to inform you of my rights.

In relation to my rights as a consumer and in terms of contractual law: Section 56(3) of the Consumer Protection Act No 68 of 2008 (CPA) provides that if a consumer elected to have goods repaired as opposed to a choice of a replacement or a refund; and the “failure, defect or unsafe feature” has not been repaired properly after a further period of three months or a further failure is discovered, the supplier must either replace the goods or refund the consumer.

The supplier will have the same obligations where a further failure, defect or unsafe feature is discovered within three months from the first repair. It is not clear whether it is the consumer or the supplier who must choose whether to replace or to refund. It has been argued that the election must be made by the consumer, as this is the case in respect of section 56(2), when the first choice of a repair, replacement or refund occurs.

Section 56 (3) places a further time limitation on a supplier’s attempt to repair a defect in goods. In other words, if a consumer demands that a supplier repairs goods in terms of section 56(2) (a) and after three months the repairs either have not been made or have not been made effectively, the consumer is entitled to exercise another remedy and the supplier will not be able to allege that repairs are still being made in an attempt to stop the consumer from rescinding. This will prevent situations where the consumer is trapped in a cycle of repairs.

In terms of personal injury law: I have mentioned that the vehicle is not safe for me to drive. I have no other choice but to drive it as I do not have a replacement vehicle. Should I be in an accident, you are aware that I could claim from the dealership. There are plenty of cases where the plaintiff (myself or my representative) has sued the dealership for damages.

Here are my options: Replacement vehicle - which was NOT in an accident and which is what I should have received; Repair the vehicle fully and provide me with monetary difference (which places me in the position I should have been had I received the vehicle I paid for); Cancel the whole contract (which I am fully entitled to do and sue the dealership for ***** and the damages that arose from their actions).

While I am certain that this matter means nothing to the dealership, this matter affects my livelihood. It is a prime example of a lucrative business taking advantage of yet another person of colour during these trying times.

Looking forward to hearing from you. Claude Whitman