AZ
Arno Z
Active since Jul 2019
9
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
9 reviews61 months ago
Toyota Nightmare continues
In May 2018 I purchased a used Audi A3 from a well known accredited dealership (for the record not Audi.) After the first 4 months I discovered that the vehicle had been involved in a serious front end collision. This was never disclosed to me. Both the AA and Audi proved conclusively that this was indeed the case. The dealership refused to refund me as per the Consumer Protection Act. I then approached the Ombudsman, then the NCC and finally the National Consumer Tribunal. 2 weeks ago was my final Tribunal hearing which lasted 5 hours via Zoom. The dealership was heavy handed and their lawyer called 5 witnesses. I represented myself and called no witnesses. Today 2 months short of 3 years the final verdict was released. I won my case and the dealership has to refund me and take the car back. The victory is so much sweeter, not only because I’ve been driving a defective and unsafe car for 3 years or for the fact that I’ve had no functioning air conditioner but for the fact that this dealership’s attitude was so threatening, unhelpful and downright disgusting. Early on they even threatened me with defamation should I continue with my actions. As of 20 April 2021 no refund has been made and Toyota SA have not assisted in any way. They have been informed several times.
0 replies
61 months ago
Caledon Toyota Nightmare
In May 2018 I purchased a used Audi A3 from a well known accredited dealership (for the record not Audi.) After the first 4 months I discovered that the vehicle had been involved in a serious front end collision. This was never disclosed to me. Both the AA and Audi proved conclusively that this was indeed the case. The dealership refused to refund me as per the Consumer Protection Act. I then approached the Ombudsman, then the NCC and finally the National Consumer Tribunal. 2 weeks ago was my final Tribunal hearing which lasted 5 hours via Zoom. The dealership was heavy handed and their lawyer called 5 witnesses. I represented myself and called no witnesses. Today 2 months short of 3 years the final verdict was released. I won my case and the dealership has to refund me and take the car back. The victory is so much sweeter, not only because I’ve been driving a defective and unsafe car for 3 years or for the fact that I’ve had no functioning air conditioner but for the fact that this dealership’s attitude was so threatening, unhelpful and downright disgusting. Early on they even threatened me with defamation should I continue with my actions. As of today 20 April 2021 I am still awaiting payment.
0 replies
82 months ago
NIGHTMARE PURCHASE UPDATE
Herewith an update to the case below: I discovered more today regarding the undisclosed history of my vehicle purchased from Caledon Toyota last year. Paarl Audi service department pointed out the following today. Please see below: - please see that the car’s odometer reading in the 2 years between 2015 and 2017 is exactly the same ie 294 000 km! - the car then services 3 times in 2 days ie 2017 07 19 and 07 20 The deduction being that the vehicle was in an accident, parked, fixed, serviced 3 consecutive times and then re-introduced into circulation. Alternatively the speedometer was disconnected for 2 years while the car was in use. None of this was ever disclosed. I discovered more today regarding the undisclosed history of my vehicle purchased from Caledon Toyota last year. Paarl Audi service department pointed out the following today. Please see below: - please see that the car’s odometer reading in the 2 years between 2015 and 2017 is exactly the same ie 294 000 km! - the car then services 3 times in 2 days ie 2017 07 19 and 07 20 The deduction being that the vehicle was in an accident, parked, fixed, serviced 3 consecutive times and then re-introduced into circulation. Alternatively the speedometer was disconnected for 2 years while the car was in use. NEVERTHELESS CALEDON TOYOTA STILL FOUND IT APPROPRIATE TO ISSUE A “GENUINE” AUTOMARK GUARANTEE. History of case as previously submitted: 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. I have also contacted the actual Automark brand managers. Several emails later and same outcome as Toyota SA. Nothing. 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.
0 replies
82 months ago
Ongoing Finance Nightmare
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 24 October I inform BMW Finance that the vehicle they are financing is defective and that I am concerned for my safety due to other possible “hidden” faults. I also express my concerns that they are financing a vehicle that is grossly overvalued. I eventually escalate the matter to Lesley-Ann Roberts a senior partner at BMW. The outcome eventually being that they will adopt a wait see approach. 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.
0 replies
82 months ago
Ongoing Finance Nightmare
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 24 October I inform BMW Finance that the vehicle they are financing is defective and that I am concerned for my safety due to other possible “hidden” faults. I also express my concerns that they are financing a vehicle that is grossly overvalued. I eventually escalate the matter to Lesley-Ann Roberts a senior partner at BMW. The outcome eventually being that they will adopt a wait see approach. 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.
0 replies
82 months ago
Non- Genuine Automark Certificate
I purchased a used vehicle on 31 May last year (2018) and was issued with an approved Toyota 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.
0 replies
82 months ago
Nightmare Purchase From Toyota Dealership with false Automark Certifate
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. I have also contacted the actual Automark brand managers. Several emails later and same outcome as Toyota SA. Nothing. 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.
0 replies
82 months ago
Nightmare Purchase from Toyota Dealership
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.
0 replies
82 months ago
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.
0 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
0 (0%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
0 (0%)
1 Star
9 (100%)