Horrible experience

We purchased a vehicle in October 2025. During the test drive, we identified a noise coming from the front suspension. The salesman, Gordon, assured us that the vehicle would be serviced and that all identified issues would be resolved prior to delivery.

However, upon delivery of the vehicle, these issues had not been addressed. Shortly thereafter, when dropping off the delivery driver at a bus station, we discovered that the side mirror was broken. A piece of the mirror cover was found behind the gear lever. The dealership was immediately informed, but they denied responsibility and instead alleged that we had caused the damage. This claim is disputed, as it was evident that the mirror had previously been glued together, with visible black adhesive on the cover.

Additionally, it was noted on the inspection report that the wheel arch on the left rear wheel was loose and required repair. This issue was also not attended to.

We were subsequently instructed by the dealership to source a repair facility for the suspension, with the assurance that they would reimburse the costs. Due to our remote location, this required multiple trips—each approximately an hour into town—resulting in significant inconvenience. The suspension issue was eventually resolved, but only after numerous trips and considerable effort on our part.

The dealership later couriered a replacement mirror; however, the part supp**** was incorrect and unsuitable for the vehicle model. Furthermore, the mirror showed signs of rust and was unusable. Despite raising these concerns with the salesman, we were continuously redirected to different individuals within the company without any resolution.

Due to the lack of assistance, we travelled from the Eastern Cape to Johannesburg to address the matter in person. Upon arrival, neither the owner nor the manager made themselves available to discuss our concerns.

Within one month of purchase, additional faults became apparent:

* The vehicle required an oil refill despite allegedly having been serviced prior to delivery * The petrol cap does not unlock from the inside * The roof lining became loose * The sunroof switch was not functioning

When raising these concerns, the salesman advised that complaints were not his responsibility and referred us to management. Despite requesting assistance, no manager or owner attended to us, citing unavailability due to meetings. We were instructed to submit a written list of defects and return the vehicle for inspection.

The vehicle was delivered to the dealership on 9 March 2026. Once again, no manager or owner engaged with us directly. After four days without feedback, we attempted to obtain updates through the salesman, who again redirected us. Attempts to contact the owner yielded minimal feedback, and we were questioned about matters that had already been communicated, including the list of defects previously provided.

Due to ongoing poor communication, we were required to return to the dealership again on 13 March 2026 to repeat and clarify the same issues already reported. Despite this, no meaningful progress was made.

We also formally requested proof that the vehicle had been serviced prior to purchase; to date, this documentation has not been provided.

Upon collecting the vehicle on 17 March 2026, we found that no repairs had been carried out. Additionally, new issues had arisen:

* A noticeable amount of fuel had been used while the vehicle was in the dealership’s possession * New noises were present from the front wheels * The speed control was not functioning correctly downhill * The rear-view mirror frame was cracked

We were assured that if the vehicle was returned on 24 March 2026, all necessary parts would be available and the issues would be resolved. However, despite these assurances, the only repair completed was the sunroof.

The dealership has denied responsibility for both the damaged mirror and the additional faults that arose while the vehicle was under their care.

In summary, the dealership has consistently failed to take responsibility for defects, has demonstrated poor communication, and has not provided a professional standard of service. This has resulted in ongoing inconvenience, additional costs, and significant frustration.