CMH Honda Menlyn review: Misrepresentation of a second hand vehicle. Not disclosing prior repairs to the vehicle.

In August of 2023 I purchased my 2021 Haval H2 luxury from CMH Honda Menlyn to the value of R 297,080.01 with the assistance of Mr Moodley acting as sales representative of CMH Honda. At the time of purchasing the vehicle no disclosures were made regarding any previous repair work or faults on the vehicle and there was only a total of about 13 000 km on the odometer.

In February of this year, I decided to sell my vehicle in order to get a vehicle with a lower monthly premium. I had the vehicle assessed at Wheelie in Centurion. Upon conducting their assessment, Wheelie indicated to me that the vehicle had been repaired twice in the year 2021. The repairs were subsequently done before I had purchased the vehicle. The two separate repairs were valued at R 11 000.00 and R19 000.00 respectively. That would thus amount to a total value of R 30 000.00 in repairs. I was informed that repairs had been done to the right-hand side of the vehicle and specifically the driver and passenger doors. The consultant informed me that the highest offer I would receive for my vehicle would be between R 180 000.00 and R 200 000.00 as a result of the repairs to the vehicle. The consultant indicated to me that they used Autobid in order to obtain the repairs information.

I did understand that I would not necessarily be able to recover my full settlement amount of R 298 339.36 but there is also no reasonable explanation why my vehicle value would have dropped by R 100 000.00 in 6 months and with only an additional 5 000km on the odometer apart from the fact that it was noted that the vehicle had been repaired.

The following day, Friday the 16th of February 2024 I went to consult with Mr Moodley directly at CMH Honda Menlyn. The full details above were relayed to Mr Moodley. Mr Moodley subsequently proceeded to show me the vehicle profile on their CMH portal. On the profile it indicated that the vehicle had no prior repairs or accident damage and Mr Moodley confirmed that they, CMH Honda Menlyn, also make use of Autobid in order to obtain a repair history. I then requested Mr Moodley to do a search on the vehicle VIN number to confirm if the results indicated the same. Mr Moodley confirmed that when searching on Autobid it also indicated to him that the vehicle had been repaired twice in 2021. This indicated to me that the

dealership either did not do their proper due diligence or they purposefully misrepresented the vehicle to me when I purchased it. During the conversation Mr Moodley indicated that they would most probably offer me about R 230 000.00 for the vehicle. This would leave me with a shortfall of R 70 000.00 in 6 months due only to the fault of CMH Honda Menlyn. I indicated to Mr Moodley that I would not accept such an offer as I did not believe a reasonable person could agree to such a depreciation in the time frame and with merely 5000km being added to the vehicle. Since it was clear that Mr Moodley was not going to accept his fault in the matter I reverted him to Section 56(2) of The Consumer Protection Act:

Implied warranty of quality

56. (1) In any transaction or agreement pertaining to the supply of goods to a consumer there is an implied provision that the producer or importer, the distributor and the retailer each warrant that the goods comply with the requirements and standards 40 contemplated in section 55, except to the extent that those goods have been altered contrary to the instructions, or after leaving the control, of the producer or importer, a distributor or the retailer, as the case may be.

(2) Within six months after the delivery of any goods to a consumer, the consumer may return the goods to the supplier, without penalty and at the supplier’s risk and 45 expense, if the goods fail to satisfy the requirements and standards contemplated in section 55, and the supplier must, at the direction of the consumer, either—

1.

(a) repair or replace the failed, unsafe or defective goods; or

2.

(b) refund to the consumer the price paid by the consumer, for the goods.

(3) If a supplier repairs any particular goods or any component of any such goods, and 50

within three months after that repair, the failure, defect or unsafe feature has not been remedied, or a further failure, defect or unsafe feature is discovered, the supplier must—

1.

(a) replace the goods; or

2.

(b) refund to the consumer the price paid by the consumer for the goods.

(4) The implied warranty imposed by subsection (1), and the right to return goods set out in subsection (2), are each in addition to—

1.

(a) any other implied warranty or condition imposed by the common law, this Act or any other public regulation; and

2.

(b) any express warranty or condition stipulated by the producer or importer, 5 distributor or retailer, as the case may be.

Mr Moodley agreed that he would communicate the matter to Mr Van Der Walt and that they would buy back the vehicle and that I could have a look at vehicles within the CMH group and within my price range and purchase the new vehicle in order for my premium to be adjusted and in line with my current budget requirements.

The following day however, I received an image from Mr Moodley via Whatsapp indicating that they were willing to purchase the vehicle from me for R 230 000.00. Since we had, had the discussion the day before I called Mr Moodley back and indicated that I would not accept the offer. I explained that since it was within 6 months of purchasing the vehicle I was covered by Section 56(2) of the CPA as the vehicle was misrepresented to me and I would never have purchased the vehicle for the price I did, had this been disclosed to me. Mr Moodley proceeded to tell me that there was no such thing to which I responded that I was well informed due to working in the legal field and the fact that I have a law degree. Upon hearing this Mr Moodley indicated that I should communicate with Mr Van Der Walt directly then and proceeded to hang up the phone call.

The next Monday, the 19th of February 2024 I went to go see Mr Van Der Walt at the CMH Honda Menlyn. My Husband, Mr Griesel had called him and confirmed a meeting. All details were relayed to Mr Van Der Walt detailing the whole experience. I explained to Mr Van Der Walt that I did not accept their offer which was R 70 000.00 less than what I purchased the vehicle for and indicated once again that the dealership was at fault because they did not relay that the vehicle had any prior repairs done. I indicated to Mr Van Der Walt that I am aware that a vehicle’s price drops significantly once it has been repaired because I, myself had suffered quite a big disadvantage when selling previous vehicles that had been repaired. I indicated that I would not get a reasonable price for my car because all dealerships make use of Autobid and as soon as they search the vehicle and find that it has been repaired they offer me a price well below the value of the vehicle.

Mr Van Der Walt, the dealer principal went on to say that there is no rule which indicates that a dealership needs to notify a prospective buyer if a car has been repaired. I want to highlight this as it is in clear contravention with Section 25 of The Consumer Protection Act and also indicates to me that the dealership is not trustworthy. Furthermore, it also appears to me that the dealership was in fact aware of the repairs but knowingly decided not to disclose it to me.

Disclosure of reconditioned or gray market goods

25. (1) A person who offers or agrees to supply, or supplies, any goods that— 45

1.

(a) have been reconditioned, rebuilt or remade; and

2.

(b) that bear the trade mark of the original producer or supplier,

must apply a conspicuous notice to those goods stating clearly that they have been reconditioned, rebuilt or remade, as the case may be.

(2) A person who markets any goods that bear a trade mark, but have been imported without the approval or licence of the registered owner of that trade mark, must apply a conspicuous notice to those goods in the prescribed manner and form.

Mr Van Dyk went on to show me the CMH vehicle portal. As previously mentioned this portal indicates that the vehicle had not had any repairs done or any prior accident history. I indicated to him that Mr Moodley had showed me the exact same portal and indicated that when the search was done initially it did not show any previous history. Mr Van Der Walt indicated that when the vehicle was purchased from the original owner in February of 2023, the Autobid system did not have the function to show the repair history of the vehicle. A quick Google search indicated to me that Autobid had the function of seeing the repair history of a vehicle far before February 2023. When I brought this to Mr Van Der Walt’s attention he then indicated that the function was available but that CMH Honda Menlyn did not have the paid version of the application at that time they purchased the vehicle and could therefore not see the repair history. I indicated to Mr Van Der Walt that I found that highly unlikely. It is absolutely shocking to be that a dealership can be so deceiving of its customers and go so far as to make up such a lie that any layman would know that they were being lied to. I am sure that any reasonable thinking person can agree when I say that it is not possible that a second-hand dealer can claim to have the unpaid version of a tool such as Autobid, in the year 2023.

I also indicated to Mr Van Dyk that I understand that the value of new vehicle drops the moment it is driven off of the showroom floor but that I am also aware that a second-hand vehicle does not depreciate that fast. In Mr Van Dyk’s reasoning he indicated to me that I was to understand that there are a lot of factors in play when a dealership sells and purchases a vehicle such as for example the commission factor. As a professional man and hopefully a man that understands the gravity of the situation that we are in, that being, that his dealership either fraudulently or innocently (by not doing their own due diligence) misrepresented a vehicle to me, I would truly hope that he is not considering or even thinking of commission as a factor when looking at the facts regarding the vehicle.

Mr Van Dyk subsequently indicated to me that they would arrange for my vehicle to be inspected by Haval. If Haval confirms that the repairs are up to standard, they will furnish me with a letter indicating same. This will then allow me to sell the vehicle for a higher price as I will have proof that the vehicle is up to standard. Alternatively, if Haval indicates that the vehicle is not up to standard we can continue in further deliberations. I indicated to Mr Van Dyk that I will not have this matter be dragged on unnecessarily and with the aim of CMH to lengthen the process and in turn let the 6-month period from August to February “lap”. I have made an appointment with a Haval dealership to access the vehicle. This will of course have to be at my own cost once again.

I am beyond disappointed with CMH’s service and all trust I have had in the entire CMH group has been broken. Their blatant disregard for customer service and wilful negligence and disregard for laws that are there to protect the consumer is a disgrace. I will definitely be voicing my dissatisfaction with the Menlyn dealer and CMH group as a whole. This might seem like a minor issue for the dealership and their staff and I believe that they are under the impression that their fault bears no real risk but I will ensure that an example is made out of them.