Consumer tribunal rejects man's claim to return new car after rolling back on inclines.
Image: Supplied
A Gauteng consumer’s attempt to cancel a purchase of a newly bought vehicle has been dismissed by the National Consumer Tribunal, which found that the car was not defective and that the dispute stemmed from the buyer's misunderstanding rather than unlawful conduct by the dealership.
The tribunal ruled against Matome William Matlakala after he brought a case against Motus Nissan Centurion, the National Consumer Commission (NCC), and MFC, a division of Nedbank.
The case centred on Matlakala’s purchase of a Nissan Magnite 1.0 Acenta EZ-Shift, which he financed for just over R293,000 and took delivery of it in February 2024.
Matlakala returned the vehicle within four days, claiming it was unsafe and defective because it rolled backwards on inclines. He argued that he had not been given an opportunity to properly test-drive the specific model and that dealership representatives had misled him into believing the car included a hill start assist feature. He sought cancellation of the sale, removal of a default listing, compensation for emotional distress, and protection from legal action.
However, the tribunal found that the vehicle’s behaviour was consistent with its design and not indicative of any defect.
Evidence showed that the model purchased was fitted with an automated manual transmission (AMT), a system known to behave differently from fully automatic vehicles, particularly on steep inclines where manual braking may be required.
The tribunal concluded that the “rolling back” experienced by Matlakala was due to his unfamiliarity with the AMT system rather than any mechanical fault. It further found that the vehicle did not include a hill start assist feature as standard and that there was no proof the dealership had misrepresented this.
“The issue arose from the consumer’s assumptions about the vehicle’s features, rather than any defect or misrepresentation,” the tribunal held, adding that test-driving a different model did not guarantee identical features in the purchased vehicle.
Matlakala also raised concerns about other minor issues, including vibrations and transmission noises. The tribunal dismissed these complaints, stating that such minor faults did not meet the legal threshold of a “defect” under the Consumer Protection Act. It emphasised that a defect must materially impair the usefulness, safety, or acceptability of the goods.
The dealership maintained that the vehicle was thoroughly inspected and found to be in good working order. It argued that cancelling the transaction would have resulted in significant financial loss due to depreciation, estimating a shortfall of around R80,000 if the vehicle were traded in.
After Matlakala refused to continue payments on the financed vehicle, MFC repossessed and sold it at auction. The tribunal noted that it could not rule on the credit agreement dispute, as no formal complaint had been brought against the finance provider.
Ultimately, the tribunal rejected all claims of prohibited conduct, including allegations of misrepresentation, unfair contract terms, and coercive behaviour. It found that the dealership had acted within the law and that the consumer had failed to verify whether the vehicle met his expectations before purchase.
“The applicant’s dissatisfaction amounts to buyer’s remorse, which is not protected under the Consumer Protection Act,” the ruling stated.
The application was dismissed in full, with no order as to costs.
IOL News