Wheeler Dealer Auto Sales

Wheeler Dealer sold me a faulty car - the National Consumer Tribunal agreed

I bought a vehicle from Wheeler Dealer Auto Sales in Strand on 11 March 2022. In the first week, the alternator stopped working. The owner of the dealership told me to claim from the warranty he had sold me. This was not possible because the warranty had not yet been loaded. I paid for a new alternator, took the broken alternator back to the owner of the dealership, and he refunded me. Four months later, the vehicle began leaking oil. I took it in for a service and to have the oil leak looked at. The vehicle had blown a gasket and had a cracked engine block caused by overheating die to a faulty thermostat. I informed the dealership, represented by Mr Nicholas Grobler, and he again told me to claim from the warranty, even though the breakdown occurred less than six months after the vehicle was purchased. The repairs were way in excess of what the warranty would pay (even on the cheapest quote), and the dealership continued to deny liability – or even to engage with me. I went to MIOSA, then to the National Consumer Commission, and finally to the National Consumer Tribunal. I had to hire lawyers to pursue the case. At numerous times, my attorneys offered Wheeler Dealer the option to settle the matter – but he was not interested. The case was heard before three members of the National Consumer Tribunal on 16 May 2025. The judgement was issued in August 2025. Available on the website of the National Consumer Tribunal, the judgement reads: “The vehicle failed to meet the standards required under section 55(2)(a) to (c). The respondent failed to comply with its obligations under section 56(2)(a) to repair the vehicle at its risk and expense following the applicant’s report of the defect. In doing so, the respondent infringed the applicant’s rights in terms of the CPA. The respondent’s conduct accordingly not only contravened sections 55(2)(a) to (c) and 56(2)(a) but also constitutes a textbook example of the type of prohibited conduct the CPA seeks to eliminate. In conclusion, the respondent demonstrated a complete disregard for the applicant’s rights and the statutory remedies enacted by the legislature to protect consumers. The respondent failed to accept responsibility and persistently raised various defences in an apparent attempt to evade liability. Its repeated instruction to the applicant to claim under the contractual warranty is indicative of the respondent’s general attitude towards consumers who report defects. The applicant has suffered considerable economic loss and remains out of pocket because of the legal costs she incurred in pursuing this matter. The cumulative effect of these circumstances has caused the applicant significant inconvenience and emotional distress. Such conduct must be strongly condemned.” It should also be noted that the National Consumer Tribunal stated in the judgement, “The respondent is cautioned to ensure full compliance with the provisions of the CPA, and future contraventions may result in the imposition of severe penalties, including an administrative fine.” Even after this ruling, getting the dealership to comply with the judgement has been an uphill battle, and to date the dealership has not meaningfully engaged to settle the judgement debt – despite knowing the economic hardship and emotional distress his actions have caused.