<\/p>\n
It\u2019s not the first time a consumer bought a car, discovered it was a lemon, and then decided to hand it back and cancel the vehicle financing agreement.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s exactly what happened to Aletta van Niekerk of Koster in North West province, who in 2017 purchased a second-hand 2012 Ford Ranger from motor dealer Autorama in Klerksdorp. The car was bought for her son, Gerrie van Niekerk.<\/p>\n
Read:\u00a0Consumers increasingly approaching consumer commission after being sold defective cars<\/p>\n
It was financed by FirstRand for R268 180 over 72 months, after the trade-in of another vehicle valued at R150,000 as a deposit.<\/p>\n
\nThe vehicle was found to have several defects, prompting Van Niekerk to decide that she was no longer interested in it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
In December, the Supreme Court of Appeal reaffirmed her right \u2013 and those of millions of other consumers in SA \u2013 to cancel a vehicle finance agreement because of a latent defect. This followed an appeal by Van Nierkerk in the North West High Court, which ruled the bank was within its rights to reject cancellation of the agreement.<\/p>\n
Background<\/strong><\/p>\n
The vehicle was delivered to Van Niekerk on 20 December 2017, but four days later she started having problems with the oil cooler and gearbox. Gerrie van Niekerk returned the vehicle to Autorama, and the gearbox was replaced.<\/p>\n
Read:\u00a0How to avoid repossession, and\u00a0when to invoke \u2018prescription\u2019<\/p>\n
The vehicle was returned to Gerrie on 25 January 2018, but within two months it was overheating again. He told Autorama he was no longer interested in the vehicle, and asked the dealer to cancel the financing agreement.<\/p>\n
\n\nADVERTISEMENT<\/p>\n
CONTINUE READING BELOW<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Van Niekerk\u2019s attorney Trudie Broekmann confirmed the cancellation in a formal letter to the bank and Autorama in April 2018.<\/p>\n
A professional mechanic engaged by the attorney, Gonasagren Moodley, stated in writing that the replaced gearbox was from an entirely different model and was not suitable for the vehicle. At trial, Moodley pointed to several defects, including issues with the gearbox and the oil cooler.<\/p>\n
FirstRand did not agree to the cancellation of the agreement and launched proceedings in the high court. Van Niekerk filed a counterclaim against the bank, to which the bank responded by arguing that the counterclaim was premature, as she had not exhausted all her remedies available to her under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).<\/p>\n
Listen\/read:\u00a0Used-car valuations: Time for an update?<\/p>\n
Van Niekerk counterclaimed for cancellation and refund of payments made (R170 023, including the deposit equivalent and five instalments).<\/p>\n
The bank also argued that the vehicle had been purchased from Autorama and that it \u2013 not the bank \u2013 was the supplier. The North West High Court had earlier ruled in the bank\u2019s favour, but this was overturned by the SCA.<\/p>\n
\nThe bank argued that Van Niekerk had waived her common-law right to cancel the agreement when she returned the vehicle for repairs.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The SCA rejected this, emphasising that waiver requires deliberate abandonment of a known right, either expressly or through conduct inconsistent with its enforcement. Citing precedent, the court noted that attempting repairs does not waive rights if the buyer acts promptly upon discovering defects. Van Niekerk\u2019s actions were found to be reasonable, and the defects were indeed material and latent.<\/p>\n
The bank also argued that as a mere credit provider and not the supplier of the goods, and the National Credit Act\u2019s exclusions of certain credit agreements from the CPA meant that consumer protections for defective goods did not apply to it.<\/p>\n
The SCA leaned on the now-famous Constitutional Court judgment in\u00a0Nkata v FirstRand Bank, which emphasised that the core of the National Credit Act (NCA) is to protect consumers and create a responsible, efficient and effective credit market.<\/p>\n
On this reading of the law, the SCA ruled that the CPA was relevant in ensuring the quality of the goods supplied to Van Niekerk.<\/p>\n
\n\nADVERTISEMENT:<\/p>\n
CONTINUE READING BELOW<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Escape routes blocked<\/strong><\/p>\n
The bank\u2019s escape routes were now almost entirely blocked, except for the argument that it was not the supplier of the goods.<\/p>\n
Here, the bank was foiled by its own credit agreement, which read: \u2018We sell the goods to you on the terms and conditions of this agreement\u2019, and \u2018We will remain the owner of the goods until you have paid all of the amounts due under this agreement\u2019.<\/p>\n
Read:
SCA orders FirstRand to repay client R170k for defective bakkie
High court orders Sandton dealership to give customer her money back
Cape Town dealer loses court bid over faulty car refund
Kimberley vehicle dealership fined R200 000 and slapped with a punitive costs order<\/p>\nUnder the National Road Traffic Act, the bank is registered as the \u2018titleholder\u2019, while Van Niekerk was recorded as the \u2018owner\u201d \u2013 which required her to keep the vehicle in a good and roadworthy condition at her own cost.<\/p>\n
\u201cHaving regard to the interpretation of the above clauses, and in the context of the entire credit agreement, leads to the inescapable conclusion that the bank most certainly wore two hats when it entered into the agreement, namely, as that of supplier and that of credit provider,\u201d the SCA judgment stated.<\/p>\n
Consumer advocate and legal advisor Leonard Benjamin has long argued that consumers purchasing defective vehicles should cancel the agreements, return the vehicles and stop making monthly payments.<\/p>\n
Hold the banks accountable<\/strong><\/p>\n
\u201cThe solution is completely legal, as I have argued for many years, and seems too good to be true. But now we have a Supreme Court decision that supports my argument.\u201d<\/p>\n
Writing for Acts Online, Benjamin says there may be concerns that the financing company will blacklist the consumer. \u201cHowever, it would be illegal to blacklist consumers who have enforced their legal rights by cancelling the agreement. In any event, blacklisting can be successfully challenged by complaining to the Credit Ombud.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\nADVERTISEMENT:<\/p>\n
CONTINUE READING BELOW<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
The courts have finally held the banks responsible for this type of behaviour, Benjamin told Moneyweb.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cFor more than a decade, they have avoided accountability by arguing that they are \u2018only the financier\u2019, despite the explicit terms of their agreements that they are selling the vehicle to the consumer.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\u201cWhen a complaint is lodged with the bank, instead of taking responsibility, the banks cheekily offer to mediate between the consumer and the dealer. That\u2019s the height of cynicism.<\/p>\n
\u201cDisappointingly, the courts and the ombudsman have failed consumers by simply regurgitating the banks\u2019 arguments, even when the terms of the agreement have specifically been pointed out to them. The legal position should not be contentious.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThe bank buys the car from the dealer in its own name, not on behalf of the consumer. It does so to get ownership. It then sells the car to the consumer, thereby attracting the obligations of a seller, under the common law, and a supplier under the CPA.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The judgment does not have the far-reaching implications that many suppose, adds Benjamin, but there are steps one can take to reduce the risks.<\/p>\n
For a start, get an indemnity from the dealer, or structure the instalment agreement so that the vehicle is hypothecated (pledged as collateral without transferring ownership or possession to the lender) to the bank. While this is not as secure as ownership, it gives the bank a limited real right.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe bank will then be registered as the title holder to avoid the possibility of ownership being transferred without its involvement,\u201d says Benjamin.<\/p>\n
Read:
Court grants relief, after a woman\u2019s nightmare journey to recover her car
Used car dealership ordered to repay consumer\u2019s R146 000 purchase price<\/p>\nFollow Moneyweb\u2019s in-depth finance and business news on WhatsApp here.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n