Kempster Sedgwick dealership has been ordered to pay back a man who bought a new Haval H6 and it gave him issues within six months.
Image: File
The National Consumer Tribunal has ordered Kempster Sedgwick dealership to pay back a man whose new Haval computer system crashed while it was booked for repairs within four months of purchase.
Grant Robert Ernest Tucker bought a new Haval H6 1.5T Hybrid Ultra in November 2022 and paid R683,050.00
In March 2023, he experienced a series of technical issues, and the dealership advised him to bring the car in, which he did.
While at the dealership, the car was connected to the computerised diagnostic programme, and its computer system crashed, rendering the car inoperable.
Tucker was informed via email that the car had a fault in its Electronic Stability Programme (ESP) and that Haval Motors South Africa was involved in addressing the problem, furthermore, the issue was also escalated to the manufacturer in China.
Dissatisfied with this response, Tucker expressed his intention to return the car due to its malfunctioning software and the significant loss of confidence in it.
He requested that, since it was within six months of him buying the car, the deal should be cancelled.
The dealership also replied through its attorneys, denying that the car was defective and offering him R540,000 for a trade-in.
In the interim, Tucker was provided with a courtesy car while the dealership fixed his car.
According to the dealership, when the car was ready for collection, Tucker failed to collect it and also did not return the courtesy car, and their attorneys instructed him to return the car, or the dealership would have no alternative but to instruct Tracker to remove the car from him.
A day thereafter, Tucker returned the courtesy car and subsequently collected his Haval.
During the hearing, Tucker, who represented himself, maintained that the car was unsafe and defective. He stated that concerns over its operations prevented him from fully utilising the vehicle, as he feared for his family's welfare.
In response, the dealership said the car was repaired, and all the issues Tucker experienced were resolved, and denied that it was unsafe. In support of their submission, the dealership pointed out that Tucker had since taken the car for services at another Haval dealership and had driven it for over 27,000 km.
Moreover, the dealership said that when imported, the car was loaded with software by the manufacturer in China that was unsuitable for South African conditions. Due to the unsuitable software, the electronic system in the car crashed when it was connected to their diagnostic programme.
Looking at the evidence, the tribunal said Tucker's issues with the car before he took it for repairs don't constitute unsafe features, however, the crashing of the computerised system when the dealership tried to update it, must be considered a defect and hazard.
The tribunal said the crashing of the computer system was no minor issue as it warranted calling for assistance from the vehicle’s manufacturer in China and it took almost a month to resolve.
In addition, it was held that if the car was imported with a computer system unsuitable for South Africa's conditions, then it automatically poses a hazard and was unsafe to be operated on the roads.
In a decisive judgment, the tribunal ordered Tucker to return the car to the dealership so that he can get his money.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL News
Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
Related Topics: