Toyota review: Inferior product

COLLAPSED ENGINE MOUNTINGS AND GEARBOX MOUNTING ON BRAND NEW TOYOTA HILUX
Within six months from buying my brand new Toyota Hilux 3.0D-4D 4 X 2 D/C at Pretoria North Toyota, the front brake pads had to be replaced due to a factory fault, as well as the front brake discs, two engine mountings and the gearbox mounting which collapsed. At that stage the vehicle only had 2705 kilometres on the clock. Despite numerous attempts to resolve the issue, Toyota Pretoria North did not even have the courtesy or decency to reply to my e-mails or to call me to discuss any of my concerns or to assist in having my concerns addressed. I also brought the matter to the attention of Toyota South Africa who is the warrantor of the product. However, Toyota South Africa’s stance was that the vehicle was repaired under the warranty and “was restored back to manufacturer’s specifications”. This prompted me to lay a complaint with the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) within the prescribed six months period from the date I took possession of the vehicle. After all, it was a brand new vehicle! I relied on Sections 55 and 56 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2008, which reads as follows:

“55. Consumer’s rights to safe, good quality goods.—
…
(2) Except to the extent contemplated in subsection (6), every consumer has a right to receive goods that—
…
(b) are of good quality, in good working order and free of any defects; …

56. Implied warranty of quality.—
(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 contemplated in section 55, …
(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 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—
(a) repair or replace the failed, unsafe or defective goods; or
(b) refund to the consumer the price paid by the consumer, for the goods.”

I have acted within the six months contemplated in the Act and should therefore be entitled to the protection determined in the Act. Therefore, if the problems with the vehicle arose after the six months period, I would have settled for the repair of the vehicle in terms of the warranty. However, this was a new vehicle which had numerous factory faults from the beginning. Section 56(3) also determines that “… If a supplier repairs any particular goods or any component of any such goods, and 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—
(a) replace the goods; or
(b) refund to the consumer the price paid by the consumer for the goods.”

This indeed took place as numerous further faults (second collapsed engine mounting and collapsed gearbox mounting) were discovered after the first repair, and subsequent repairs within three months after such repair. This provision compels the supplier (Toyota South Africa) to replace the vehicle if so elected by the consumer. I made it clear to Toyota South Africa that I’ve elected (as contemplated in the Act) that the vehicle be replaced with a new vehicle with the same accessories as I purchased originally.

Despite these clear provisions in the Act, MIOSA in their infinite wisdom concluded that the “… noise was eliminated and your vehicle was restored back to manufacturer specifications …”, and “… we are satisfied with that the corrective measures were successful …”
Toyota South Africa has trampled all over my rights as a consumer with little or no regard to the institution of MIOSA, the Automotive Industry Code of Conduct and the Consumer Protection Act, 2008. MIOSA has also failed dismally to protect my rights as a consumer as contemplated in the Act. What is the purpose of this Act if Original Engine Manufacturers and Dealers can decide at their whim whether to comply with the provisions thereof or not, and if the appointed watchdog does not effectively enforce the provisions of the Act?