WENDY KNOWLER | Nothing basic about the drama that can come with an entry-level car

New cars going horribly wrong – it’s a complaint that lands in my inbox all too often, and with it, the disappointed, furious new owner’s desperate wish that the dealership “takes back” the car and refunds them.

Alas, that seldom happens, and almost never when the persistent problems aren’t what the industry refers to as “safety critical” – think defective steering or brakes.

Some “Monday car” owners are elated when told the dealership will take the car back. That is until they discover that what they mean is they’ll refund them the car’s “book value” – in other words, far, far less than they paid for their “brand new” car.

So the hapless owner of the problem car is expected to carry the loss, as if they’re choosing to trade in a perfectly good new car.

In my view, the vehicle, right from the onset, was simply not of good quality. Any version to the contrary must be rejected, as I do.

—  Moses Mavundla, high court judge

Rattles, sound system problems, electrical issues and other quality-related niggles may not be safety critical and may not render the car unfit for purpose, but my goodness, they are annoying and can utterly ruin the “new car” experience for someone who is paying through the nose to a bank for it every month.

For Abigail Wentzel, the cheerful went out of her “cheap” Renault Kwid purchase before she even left the showroom of multibrand franchise Zambezi in Pretoria North (owned by the Motus Corporation) in December 2017.

She’d signed a financed deal on the new car – with a R10,000 motor plan and R5,000 “on the road” fee being among the extras added to the R131,491 purchase price – and was committed to paying a monthly instalment of R3,637 for the next six years; that is until December 2023.

It was all downhill from there – the noise coming from the engine was unbearable, Wentzel said, the immobiliser unit had to be replaced, she couldn't use her phone via the car’s built-in Bluetooth at anything more than 70km, the aircon wouldn’t cool, the brakes needed to be “deglazed”, a roof rail became detached and there was a problem with one of the windows.

In and out of the dealership’s workshop the Kwid went, as they “honoured the manufacturer’s warranty” on the car.

After 18 months of that, Wentzel unsurprisingly wanted to be rid of it without suffering a financial loss, and she was prepared to take her case to court.

In 2019, high court judge Moses Mavundla ordered Renault, the dealership and the financing bank to repay about R260,000 for the returned car, that being the full amount Wentzel would have paid by December 2023.

“In my view, the vehicle, right from the onset, was simply not of good quality. Any version to the contrary must be rejected, as I do,” the judge said.

Companies should not be allowed to “bully unsuspecting consumers to accept flawed goods and raise all sort of spurious defences and denials”, the court said.

But it was a shortlived victory. Renault SA appealed the judgment.

And on April 13, the Supreme Court of Appeal deemed that high court judgment to be wrong.

In essence, the disputed issues were whether the Kwid had defects, whether they were resolved by Renault and whether there were any further complaints received by Renault from Wentzel after the repairs.

Judge Dumisani Zondi said those “serious disputes of fact” could not be ignored, and that Wentzel stopped formally complaining about the car after the third set of repairs.

Zondi also pointed out the high court had ignored that Renault was entitled to deduct “a reasonable amount for the use of the vehicle” during the 18 months she had it, if there were to be a refund.

The judgment, which should be of huge interest to anyone buying a new car, especially an “entry level” one, hinged on what constitutes a defect in terms of the Consumer Protection Act.

“It must be accepted on the facts that are common cause that (Wentzel’s) vehicle did have certain issues, which she brought to the attention of Renault,” Zondi said.

“It is more difficult to determine whether they amounted to defects as defined in the statute.

“Not every small fault is a defect as defined.”

And then came the standout comment for me: “No evidence was led by either side to inform the court of what purchasers of entry-level motor vehicles are reasonably entitled to expect.”

I have so often been told by owners of problematic new little cars that the dealership responded to their complaints with: “Well, what did you expect from a cheap car?”

Zondi continued: “Is every rattle or unfamiliar noise a defect in terms of the statute?

“A defective module may be readily replaced, as occurred with the immobiliser. Does that render the vehicle defective so as to entitle the purchaser to return it and demand repayment of the purchase price? Clearly not.”

Research the Kwid for just a few minutes online and you’ll read the words “poor build quality” many times.

In April 2019, when I told Renault I’d received many complaints from Kwid owners about bad brake noise and pads needing to be replaced after six months, I was told the Kwid’s brakes were not designed for SA driving conditions and styles and, when used locally, could result in them “producing a disconcerting sound when applied”.

“We are glad to inform you that we have sourced a softer compound brake pad for the Kwid, which is more aligned with SA conditions and driver profiles.”

Those brakes weren’t defective either, Renault would no doubt argue.

But a series of disconcerting noises, rattles and malfunctions, requiring repeated surrendering of a car to a dealership for repair, does not make for happy car ownership.

So car buyers would do very well to look beyond price and cute design when deciding on a model.

Renault sold 519 new Kwids in SA last month.