A R700k Safety Risk: My Experience with the "Second Best" Dealership

Thank you for your response. To ensure the public record remains accurate and transparent, I am compelled to provide the following corrections. This response is grounded in the technical evidence, sworn testimony, and the dealer’s own internal admissions.

The Roadworthy Certificate (RWC): While a certificate was issued, the DEKRA Regional Manager has formally admitted in writing that this was a "human error" and that the vehicle did not comply with safety standards at the time of sale. A dealer cannot legally rely on a document that the issuing authority has formally disavowed as a mistake.

Tacit Admission of Defects: Your response on this platform stating the car is in "great condition" is directly contradicted by your owner’s formal submission to MIOSA (dated 19 August 2025), where he offered to "replace 2 tyres" and "repair the exhaust welding crack." This is a documented admission that safety-critical defects existed.
Documentary Negligence: The Offer to Purchase (OTP) delivery checklist (Page 9) for this R703,000 vehicle is almost entirely blank. The "Checked By" columns for "Tyres / Rims / Mags," "Engine," and "Brakes" were never signed off, proving that no physical safety inspection was performed by your team prior to delivery.

Technical Incompetence of the "Remedy": Your offer to replace only two tyres on a high-performance All-Wheel Drive (AWD) vehicle like the GR Yaris is technically negligent. Expert reports from Toyota specialists and TWT confirm that mismatched tyre circumferences risk catastrophic drivetrain failure. I am not "dissatisfied" with used-car conditions; I am rejecting a "patchwork" repair that would further damage the asset.

Bad Faith Administrative Suppression: It must be noted for the public record that the dealership has repeatedly attempted to report my reviews as "inaccurate" to have them removed. This is a clear attempt at administrative suppression, which has failed because I have provided a sworn legal affidavit and the DEKRA admission to the platform’s compliance team. Reporting a safety-whistleblower report that is backed by an oath is a definitive act of bad faith.

The Cancellation and the CPA: I did not "fail to go ahead" with a cancellation. I rejected an ******** proposal that included a R122,812.52 "cancellation fee" and a demand that I waive my statutory rights. Under Section 56(2) of the CPA, the choice of remedy (Refund or Repair) belongs to the consumer, and a dealer is prohibited from penalizing a consumer with fees for returning an unroadworthy and misrepresented asset.

Historical Conduct: The National Consumer Tribunal’s finding of "prohibited and unconscionable" conduct (Case NCT/246983/2022) regarding your dealership is a matter of public record. This current dispute is a documented continuation of those same systemic failures.

I remain committed to the MIOSA process and seek only the full restitution that the Law demands for a documented safety-critical breach of contract.

I am updating this review to provide a critical forensic alert for prospective buyers of this asset, which is currently re-advertised for sale.
MIOSA Ruling (Case 509014/JB) – VIN: JTDAF4E310A010771

The Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa has issued a finalized finding regarding VIN: JTDAF4E310A010771. The office concluded there are "reasonable grounds to conclude that the vehicle was not in a condition consistent with Section 55(2) of the Act," entitling the consumer to remedial action. This confirms the vehicle failed the statutory imp**** warranty of quality and safety at the point of delivery.

Documented Technical Failures (CPA Section 55 Breach)
The investigation confirmed the vehicle was supp**** in an unroadworthy and hazardous state. Specifically, the findings identified:
Tire Infrastructure: Tires worn to the internal canvas, constituting a terminal safety failure.
Exhaust System: Material defects/leaks that compromised the vehicle's roadworthy certification.

These failures were corroborated by independent technical assessments from DEKRA Automotive and Toyota.

Advisory to Prospective Buyers
While I make no assumptions regarding any mechanical remediation performed by the dealership since the vehicle was returned, the Section 55(2) breach is a matter of record.

Prospective buyers are strongly advised to:
Demand an independent technical audit specifically verifying the replacement of the tires and repair of the exhaust system.

Request formal disclosure of the MIOSA Case 509014 history to ensure full transparency regarding the vehicle's compliance record.
This update is provided as a clinical record of the vehicle's documented history to ensure consumer safety and transparency for VIN: JTDAF4E310A010771.