Anyone buying a new vehicle has certain expectations regarding that vehicle. But what happens if, after a few weeks, the buyer notices a problem with the vehicle, resulting in its not living up to the owner’s original expectation?

Such is the case with Mr Hezekiel Makhado. He bought a new vehicle from Bridge Motors in Louis Trichardt, but after a couple of weeks spotted a problem with the vehicle’s paint work. He said he tried everything in his power to negotiate an acceptable solution to the problem, but is of the opinion that the dealership and manufacturer are not taking his complaint seriously. Bridge Motors, on the other hand, says this could not be further from the truth.

It all started on May 21 last year, when Makhado bought his wife a new Mazda 3. Three weeks later, however, he noticed that the right rear door’s paint differed from that of the rest of the vehicle. He reported the matter immediately. More than a year later, however, his problem has still not been solved, with Makhado saying that Bridge Motors now wants nothing to do with him anymore. He has already sought legal advice and has appointed an attorney, demanding a new replacement vehicle or a total refund from Bridge Motors.

“We need a new car as we bought a new car,” says Makhado. He argues that Bridge Motors should have picked up the problem during the pre-delivery inspection as it is stated in the vehicle’s warranty booklet that the vehicle was thoroughly inspected before delivery. He claims that, because of the colour difference in the paint work, his vehicle has lost value, especially with regard to the vehicle’s resale value.

On the other hand, Mr Rampie Gilfillan from Bridge Motors says that it is Makhado’s unwillingness to accept their offer of rectifying the problem which is causing the problem to persist. He says that, as Makhado referred to the pre-delivery inspection in the warranty booklet, he should also look at the warranty clause in the same booklet with regard to the vehicle’s paint work. This clause states that “if the surface of the vehicle body requires attention due to a manufacturing defect, the necessary repairs will be performed completely free of charge by any Mazda Authorized Dealer or Mazda Approved Body Repair Centre.”

Gilfillan says that neither Bridge Motors nor Ford SA was ever reluctant to address the problem. He says they followed procedure when the problem was identified by reporting it to Ford SA, with Ford SA in turn approving the claim they submitted on Makhado’s behalf to have the door repainted, as stated in the warranty, to Ford SA and Mazda specifications.

“He does not want us to repaint the door and refuses to bring the vehicle in so that this can be done,” Gilfillan says, adding that Ford SA will not hesitate to replace a vehicle should a client’s case have merit.

“At face value, Makhado’s complaint does not merit our replacing his vehicle with a new one,” Gilfillan said. He said that at one stage he even offered to trade Makhado’s vehicle in on a new one, but he also refused this offer.

Gilfillan said he cannot understand that, if Makhado is so eager to have the problem resolved, why he does not bring the vehicle in to be repaired.

“There is a procedure to be followed. The first step is for him to bring the vehicle back, so that we can rectify the paint work. If he does not want to do this, what can we do?” Gilfillan said.

As for Makhado’s claim that Bridge Motors should have picked up on the problem during the pre-delivery inspection, Gilfillan said that in all honesty they had not seen it. He says Makhado himself only spotted the difference three weeks later. With regard to this, Gilfillan says that they gave Makhado a letter wherein Mr Naas Gouws from Ford SA’s sales department confirmed that the problem had occurred during the manufacturing process. In the letter, it is also explained what might have caused the problem, while also clearly stating that, despite the problem, the vehicle is still a new unit.

As for Makhado’s contention that Bridge Motors has said they want nothing to do with him anymore, Gilfillan said that they are still willing to negotiate with Makhado, although the fact that he has opted for the services of an attorney now complicates matters. At present, however, the two parties have reached a stalemate regarding the problem.

So, what is a buyer to do in such a situation?

According to Mr Paul Crankshaw, editor of Consumer Fair, published by the National Consumer Forum, this is somewhat of an unusual problem. At face value, he said, Makhado has reason to be unhappy.

“From a consumer’s point of view, if a supplier does something to put you in a worse situation than before, you as a consumer are eligible for some kind of compensation to restore the product to its original state. In this case, merely respraying the door, in my opinion, seems not to be enough. The consumer will still be worse off,” Crankshaw said with regard to Makhado’s concern over the resale value of the vehicle.

“It’s all about perceptions. It could happen that when he wants to sell the car, the resprayed parts might create the perception that the car had been damaged. This could indeed affect the resale value,” Crankshaw said. As a possible solution to the problem, Crankshaw said it might be a good idea for Makhado to get a letter from Mazda or the dealer, stating that the respray was not due to damage to the car. Such a letter was supplied to Makhado.

Crankshaw did not want to express an opinion regarding the legal aspects of the issue or Makhado’s demand for a new car, as he is not an expert in this area.

“You should look at what the contract says,” Crankshaw said. In this regard, Bridge Motors says that they have kept to their side of the contract by honouring the warranty to have the vehicle resprayed to its original Ford SA and Mazda specifications. Makhado, however, says this is not enough and is pushing ahead with legal action.