Angelica V

********* Sales

I purchased a new vehicle from Mazda Randburg on 13 November 2020. At the time of sale, the Mazda sales representative verbally explained the terms of the sale, including the extended maintenance plan. I was explicitly informed that the extended plan would only commence upon expiry of the standard 3-year manufacturer warranty—i.e., from 2023. Based on this verbal explanation, I electronically signed the documentation via a desk pad provided at the dealership. It has since come to my attention that the extended maintenance plan was, in fact, activated from the date of sale in 2020, and is now due to expire in 2025, instead of 2028 as I had reasonably understood. This overlap with the manufacturer’s warranty directly contradicts the provisions set out in the MazdaCare Extended Maintenance Plan (Ref: 01281-01282-01283-01722-202002-V3), specifically Section 3: Effective Date and Duration, which states: “Your Plan will commence on either the date of sale or, if your vehicle is still covered under an existing maintenance plan, when the existing plan expires.” Constitutes a violation of rights as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, specifically: Section 22: Right to information in plain and understandable language Section 41: Prohibition against false, misleading or deceptive representations Section 48: Unfair, unreasonable or unjust contract terms and marketing practices Section 49: Notice required for any terms that may limit rights or result in liability I feel that I was misled, not provided with full disclosure, and as a result, have suffered financial prejudice by paying for a maintenance plan that overlapped unnecessarily with the manufacturer’s warranty—thus providing no additional benefit for the period in question. Despite my efforts to resolve this matter directly with both Mazda Randburg and the Innovation Group, my complaint has been dismissed.