Caledon Toyota Nightmare Purchase

I purchased a used vehicle on 31 May last year (2018) and was issued with an approved Automark Warranty from Caledon Toyota, 30 Prins Albert road, Caledon, Western Cape. The air conditioner never worked from the first day of purchase. I then waited 4 months for the instructors manual to arrive and still could not get the aircon to work. On the advise from the dealership I took the car for a aircon regas where it is pointed out to me by Dunlop Stellenbosch that certain pipes are missing from the air conditioner and the car has seemingly been in a front end collision. They are unable to proceed. Audi Somerset West also check and confirm possible front end collision and inferior workmanship. On 26 October I personally request a full refund from Caledon Toyota. On 31 October dealership sends me a legal letter saying they will refund me if I can prove the car has been in an accident. On 2 November 2018 an independent AA Dekra report confirms several undisclosed defects. The car has seemingly been involved in a prior head on collision. It has even been spray painted from front to back. None of this was ever disclosed prior to purchase. I have the voice recording of the sales representative Johan Wentzel telling me that the car is accident free. Instead of a full refund as requested I am offered the trade in value of which I must also pay for the kms and usage. The shortfall amounts to R38 824 which I would need to pay for out of my own pocket. I reject the offer and report the matter to MIOSA which in turn refers me to the NCC. The case is ongoing. Upon further requests for a refund I am threatened several times with defamation by the dealership. This should I follow through with my threat to take the matter to the media and if I continue to refer to the transaction as “fraudulent.” I have contacted Toyota SA who are unable to assist as this is an independently owned franchise. 1 year and 3 months later I am still driving the same defective vehicle. Section 56(2) of the Consumer Protection Act clearly states that if a consumer purchases goods that do not comply with the requirements set out in section 55 a consumer may within six months of the purchase return the goods to the seller at the seller’s risk and expense and the seller must at the direction of the consumer either: Repair or replace the defective goods; or Refund the consumer fully for the goods purchased. Nothing of this has happened. This seems like a never ending nightmare.