It’s been more than six years since Gregory Williams discovered rust in his then three-month-old Ford Everest; a defect he wanted fixed, of course. But the dealership — Lazarus Ford in Centurion — denied any liability, claiming that the corrosion was not a manufacturing defect, but rather caused by a pool acid spill.
Williams insisted that wasn’t the case, and later sent the dealership photos showing corrosion, not only on the bolts of the vehicle's rear loading compartment under the carpet cover, which was his initial discovery, but also on several other parts, including the undercarriage. In response, the dealership invited Williams to return the Everest for further evaluation by the manufacturer, Ford.
For a second time the defect claim was rejected, Ford saying their Silverton plant did not contain the chemicals necessary to cause the specific form of corrosion on the vehicle. But the manufacturer offered to do the repair, on condition that Williams paid the labour costs. He refused, and took his case to the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa, where it stalled because the dealership apparently failed to engage with that office.
This led Williams to lodge a formal complaint with the National Consumer Commission, which rejected the case, saying it lacked grounds for a remedy in terms of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Section 56 of the CPA obliges suppliers to repair, replace or refund consumers if a product proves to be defective within six months. But when the case came before the National Consumer Tribunal, it found in favour of Williams and ordered that the dealership have the rust removed.
Lazarus Ford appealed that decision, which is how it ended up before the high court in Pretoria. In a judgment handed down last week, the appeal was dismissed with costs. “The order of the tribunal stands, that is, [Lazarus Ford] is ordered to remove the rust and repair [Williams’] car back to the standard it should have been if there was no rust,” the judgment reads.
One of the issues highlighted in the case was: is rust a defect, given that the Everest was still getting Williams 'from point A to point B', some 170,000km later?
One of the issues highlighted in the case was: is rust a defect, given that the Everest was still getting Williams “from point A to point B”, some 170,000km later? But the court went with the argument that the rust had spread extensively throughout the vehicle, affecting the metals, “and though the vehicle can still be used ... it is not meant to have a rusting or corrosion on any of its parts as a new vehicle”.
Plus, according to Williams, the rust had caused the Everest's back left shock absorber to fail. “As a result, due to the existence of the rust, one can say that the vehicle is less acceptable and unsafe than people generally would reasonably be entitled to expect from the goods of that type: a brand-new car. This indicates a defect in the vehicle.”
Now there’s a good quote for any consumer waging a battle with a dealer or manufacturer over a rusty car. The case also saw expert witnesses coming to two very different conclusions about the cause of the rust: Williams’s expert said tests revealed that it was caused by a water solution, not direct acid exposure, and the expert view provided by the dealership contradicted that.
The man who oversees Ford’s production plant in Silverton, Pretoria, testified to the tribunal that there had never been another reported car rust issue, but that evidence was rejected on the grounds that he failed to disclose that all car manufacturers, including Ford, conduct regular quality control inspections on a representative sample.
Lazarus Ford slammed the tribunal's rejection of that evidence as “erroneous and unsustainable”, arguing there was no justification for disbelieving the facts about the manufacturing process. But it was the court’s view that because Ford’s production plant manager had never encountered the problem “or heard of a complaint regarding rust on a [Ford] manufactured car” that “does not imply that it will never occur”.
Ultimately, the court’s decision boiled down to this: “The rusting of the vehicle is directly linked to the definition of a defect. It is unpersuasive for [the dealership] to claim that [Williams] had spilled the acid. If there was an acid spill, one would have wondered why the rust started manifesting under the carpet lid and not on the carpet, chairs and seat belts.”
I approached Ford South Africa for comment, given that it’s the manufacturer that will undoubtedly be picking up the tab for the removal of the rust on the now seven-year-old SUV. “The dealer will be assessing the findings and making a decision on next steps,” a spokesperson said. “Ford Motor Company of South Africa is not involved in the court case and therefore cannot comment on it.”
He did say that when the rust complaint was first raised on the vehicle in question, a Ford paint assessor and field service engineer found that an “external factor” had caused the corrosion, not a manufacturing defect. The early offer to bear part of the cost of repair was a goodwill gesture, he said. Were there other complaints of rust from Everest owners around that time? I asked. There were not, the spokesperson said.
In 2017 — the year Williams bought his vehicle — 5,751 Everests were sold in South Africa, and another 4,793 the following year.
• Contact Knowler for advice with your consumer issues via email consumer@knowler.co.za or on X (Twitter) @wendyknowler
