YM
Yasmien M
Active since Feb 2026
2
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
2 reviews2 months ago
MFC (Most Frustrating Finance)Delayed Responses and Negligence in a Serious Vehicle Dispute
MFC – Delayed, Negligent Handling of a Defective Vehicle Dispute I am extremely dissatisfied with MFC’s handling of a dispute involving a defective vehicle financed through them. Key Facts and Dates The vehicle was financed via MFC and is legally owned by the bank. The vehicle was officially sold and delivered on 20 September 2025. Due to acknowledged defects, the vehicle was returned to the dealer on 22 September 2025. From that date onward, I was largely deprived of use of the vehicle. Attorneys acting on my behalf made formal approaches to MFC over the following weeks and months. Despite this, responses from MFC were delayed, inadequate, or absent. The vehicle was only returned to me on 2 December 2025, after which it was found unsafe to drive. Throughout this period: Instalments continued to be debited Insurance costs continued I was paying for a vehicle I could not safely use. This approach is deeply concerning, particularly in light of the Supreme Court of Appeal decision in Alta van Niekerk v WesBank (December 2025), which confirmed that finance institutions cannot simply distance themselves from defective vehicle sales when the financed asset does not meet Consumer Protection Act standards. Despite owning the vehicle, MFC failed to: Act with urgency Protect its asset Ensure fair treatment of the consumer The prolonged delays and lack of decisive action give the impression of negligence and a disregard for consumer rights. This experience has resulted in financial prejudice, unnecessary stress, and a complete loss of confidence in MFC’s customer service and governance.
0 replies
2 months ago
N2 Auto - Vehicle Never Fit to Drive – Broken Undertakings & CPA Breaches
N2 Auto – Sold a Vehicle Not Fit to Drive / CPA Breaches I purchased a vehicle from N2 Auto in September 2025, and to date, it has never been fit to drive. Timeline of Events 3 September 2025: Initial contact made with N2 Auto to purchase the vehicle. 9 September 2025: The dealership claims the vehicle was “delivered” as a surprise. This was not an official handover, and the vehicle was returned to them the very next day. 20 September 2025: Official sale and delivery took place. A DEKRA inspection was conducted. N2 Auto issued a Letter of Undertaking, formally acknowledging pre-existing defects that required rectification. 22 September 2025: The vehicle was collected by N2 Auto to complete the outstanding items listed in the Letter of Undertaking. 30 September 2025: I followed up and was assured the vehicle would be ready by 3 October 2025 before 12:00. 3 October 2025: This commitment was not honoured. No meaningful update was provided thereafter. 22 September – 2 December 2025: The vehicle remained with N2 Auto for an unreasonable and unexplained period. 2 December 2025: The vehicle was returned to me. After 2 December 2025: The vehicle was taken for a roadworthy test and failed, being deemed unsafe to drive. I had no option but to let the vehicle stand. Key Issues: All defects were identified before delivery, documented in the DEKRA report and acknowledged in N2 Auto’s Letter of Undertaking dated 20 September 2025. N2 Auto failed to complete agreed work within a reasonable time and failed to communicate honestly or consistently. This conduct constitutes a clear breach of the Consumer Protection Act, including: Section 54 (timely and quality service) Section 55 (acceptable quality and fitness for purpose) Section 56 (right to refund, repair, or replacement) The result has been: Almost no use of the vehicle Ongoing insurance and finance costs Significant inconvenience and distress Based on this experience, I would strongly caution consumers against dealing with N2 Auto. The vehicle sold was not roadworthy, undertakings were not honoured, and basic consumer rights were ignored.
0 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
0 (0%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
0 (0%)
1 Star
2 (100%)