Johannesburg – Car dealer WeBuyCars has agreed to pay a R2.5 million administrative fine and refund more than R3.4 million to 31 consumers after used vehicles sold to them were found to have defects and sales agreements that limited buyers’ rights under consumer law.
The settlement was confirmed by South Africa’s National Consumer Tribunal on 19 December following an investigation by the National Consumer Commission. The consent order carries the same legal weight as a High Court ruling and stems from complaints lodged by consumers who said the dealer failed to offer proper remedies after defects were discovered.
According to the order, WeBuyCars will refund a total of R3 419 971.83 to the affected buyers, with individual amounts ranging from R2 267 to R649 169. The company is also required to revise its terms and conditions within two months to bring them into line with the Consumer Protection Act, pay the fine in instalments, and roll out a consumer awareness programme on the rights and obligations linked to buying pre owned vehicles.
The fine will be paid in three parts, with R1 million due by 31 December 2025, another R1 million by 30 June 2026, and the remaining R500 000 by 31 December 2026. The tribunal order further states that the awareness programme will run over two years, supported by a minimum investment of R500 000.
As part of the settlement, WeBuyCars has also committed to creating 300 additional jobs over five years to improve customer service capacity. The estimated total cost of these commitments is expected to fall between R180 million and R195 million over the period, excluding salary increases and bonuses.
Hardin Ratshisusu, acting commissioner of the NCC, said the investigation found that WeBuyCars’ warranty clauses and terms of sale contravened several provisions of the Act. The commission formed a reasonable suspicion that consumers were being deprived of statutory protection, particularly where defects emerged soon after purchase.
The tribunal found several clauses in the company’s sales agreements to be unlawful. One clause required buyers to acknowledge a Dekra Used Vehicle Report while accepting that it did not reflect the mechanical condition or reliability of the vehicle. The order ruled that relying on this wording to avoid liability amounted to prohibited conduct, as it fell short of the protections provided under the Act.
Other clauses directed consumers to rely on purchased warranties for repairs, even within the first six months of ownership. The tribunal held that this approach violated consumer rights, as defects detected within that period fall under the implied warranty created by law.
The ruling also rejected language in the agreements that sought to distance the dealer from responsibility by citing its role as a marketer rather than a manufacturer. The tribunal found such provisions to be unfair, unreasonable and unlawful.
The development has wider implications for consumers in Eswatini, where many used vehicles are sourced from South Africa. It comes soon after a Supreme Court of Appeal decision that extended responsibility for defective vehicles to banks that finance them, treating financiers as suppliers under consumer law.
In that case, WesBank financed a defective used vehicle. FNB corporate affairs executive Jacqui O’Sullivan said the bank has since put processes in place to support customers who report defects, including referring vehicles back to dealerships for inspection and offering refunds or repairs where material defects are confirmed.
She said WesBank is also conducting an internal review to strengthen compliance and ensure continued alignment with legal requirements following the court ruling.
Discussion about this post