It took almost 13 years since her original complaint before the High Court confirmed that she and the Consumer Tribunal were right.
The High Court in Pretoria confirmed a National Consumer Tribunal judgment this week against a used car dealer from Kimberly, which now means he must refund the consumer and pay the fine of R200 000 for “stonewalling” the investigation process by claiming an amount of R3 900 to hand over documents.
According to the Consumer Tribunal judgment, a consumer bought a GWM Steed vehicle for R215 000 in February 2012 from Lambons GWM Kimberly. Within six months, the consumer discovered various defects in the vehicle and returned it to Lambons several times during 2012 for repairs.
Lambons repaired the vehicle every time, but afterwards, there were always more defects and towards the end of 2012, the consumer said she wanted a full refund and return the car, but the dealer refused.
The consumer filed a complaint with the Motor Industry Ombudsman, which recommended that Lambons resolve the complaint by refunding the consumer and taking the vehicle back within 15 working days.
Lambons failed to do this, and the consumer took the matter to the High Court to enforce her rights under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The High Court ordered the National Consumer Commission (NCC) to investigate Lambons’ alleged non-compliance.
After the investigation, the NCC found that Lambons contravened sections 55(2)(b) and 56(3)(a) or (b) of the CPA.
ALSO READ: Court confirms Consumer Tribunal decision dealer must refund and pay a fine
Consumer Tribunal had to decide if dealer contravened these sections
According to section 55 of the CPA, the used car you buy must be safe and of good quality, but this section is not applicable if you bought the car at an auction. You have the right to buy a car that is reasonably suitable for the purpose it is intended for.
The car must be of good quality, in good order and free of any defects, and usable and durable for a reasonable period of time, depending on what you will generally use it for, unless the dealer has told you expressly about defects in the car, and you already agreed to buy it.
Seeing that the dealer sells cars, you can also, in terms of this section, assume that he will give you good advice when you explain what you will use the car for.
Section 56 is also very important when you buy a used car and guarantees that the car adheres to the standards set in section 55. If this is not the case, you can return the car within six months after buying it, and the dealer has to repair it, exchange it or refund your money.
In addition, this repair work is guaranteed for three months, and if it breaks down again within this time, the dealer must repair it or give your money back.
ALSO READ: Tribunal fines car repairer R100 000 for being ‘dishonest and contemptuous’
Case went to Consumer Tribunal when dealer did not comply with compliance notice
The NCC then issued a compliance notice that informed Lambons that it contravened section 55(2)(b) in supplying a defective vehicle to a consumer and section 56(3)(a) and (b) in failing to refund the consumer after further defects were discovered.
The dealer also had to comply with the Ombudsman’s recommendation or replace the vehicle with a similar one, refrain from engaging in similar prohibited conduct, or be issued an administrative fine. After Lambons failed to comply with the notice, the NCC referred the matter to the Consumer Tribunal.
According to the Consumer Tribunal’s judgment, Lambons elected not to comply with the compliance notice and had no intention to in the future. The Tribunal stated in its judgment that the nature of the respondent’s disregard for the legislation and the NCC as a regulatory authority justifies the Tribunal imposing an administrative fine of R200 000.
Lambons took the matter on review to the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, asking the court to review and set aside the judgment of the Consumer Tribunal, condone its non-compliance according to the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act and declare the Tribunal’s ruling and the compliance notice from the NCC unlawful administrative acts.
The court was not asked to rule on the merits of the case between Lambons and the consumer.
ALSO READ: Consumer Tribunal orders used car dealer to refund consumer R146 000 for defective car
High Court: Lambons conduct demonstrates contemptuous disregard for NCC authority
The court found that Lambons deliberately refused to comply with the compliance notice and said that Lambons’ conduct, including withholding the vehicle and demanding storage fees, demonstrates “a contemptuous disregard” for the NCC’s authority.
According to the judgment, the Consumer Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction to impose the fine of R200 000 and was therefore correct to impose the fine. The court also said Lambons failed to demonstrate any reviewable irregularity, illegality, or irrationality, and its contentions are without merit.
Acting judge Mercedes Mokadikoa-Chauke dismissed the review application and ordered Lambons to pay the costs
Hardin Ratshisusu, acting commissioner of the NCC, welcomed the judgment and said it shows that companies that have no regard for consumer rights will face consequences. “The judgment should deter suppliers from engaging in the same conduct and rather address and resolve consumer complaints as soon as possible.”
