Letter sent to Hyundai with no response to date

1. During the week of the 25th – 29th January 2010 our client approached Michael "Angelo", employed by your company, and indicated to him that she was urgently wanting to purchase either a double cab light delivery vehicle alternatively a sports utility vehicle in the price range of approximately R 100 000.00. Michael told her that he did not have anything in that price range but that he would try and find such a vehicle for her;
2. On Saturday 30th January 2010 our client was contacted by Michael who advised her that he had found a Land Rover Discovery which would be ideal for her. The vehicle was being sold for approximately R 127 900.00, but he would sell her the vehicle for R 88 000.00;
3. On Monday 1st February 2010 our client instructed Michael to proceed to apply for financing for the Discovery. Our client took her vehicle, a 2001 Toyota Tazz, to Michael and after inspecting it Michael told our client that the Tazz was in a good condition and that he would give her the full trade-in value of R 34 000.00 for the Tazz. At no stage did he indicate to our client that the price for the Discovery would be R 88 000.00 after trading in the Tazz;


4. During the course of the day our client enquired from Michael as to the progress in applying for finance. She was told that he was waiting for a reply from the banks;
5. On Tuesday the 2nd February 2010 our client was informed by Michael that financing had been declined as our client's name had been blacklisted on ITC. Our client immediately obtained credit reports from both Transunion as well as Experian which indicated no adverse credit reports;
6. She immediately phoned Wesbank who within a few minutes approved her credit application. This was communicated to Michael and he was instructed to proceed with the necessary so that our client could take delivery of the Discovery that same day;
7. The Discovery was, inter alia, taken to the testing centre to obtain a roadworthy certificate so as to register the Discovery on our client's name;
8. It must be placed on record that at no stage up to this point was any mention made to our client that the Discovery was being sold voetsoots. Michael did mention that the brake warning light on the instrument panel was coming on but that they had taken the Discovery to a mechanic who could find no fault with the brakes;
9. At 16:30 on the afternoon of the 2nd February 2010 our client, together with writer hereof, proceeded to your business premises to sign the necessary documentation and to take delivery of the Discovery. Amongst other things she was also sold a warranty from SA Warranties;
10. The documentation drafted by Wesbank did however not reflect the agreement concluded with Michael.

In terms of the credit agreement from Wesbank our client has to pay the following:
10.1 a cash price of R95 000.00 instead of the R 88 000.00 agreed upon;
10.2 R3000.00 for service and delivery. The Discovery was never serviced by yourselves prior to delivery. In addition our client came to your business premises to collect the Discovery. Your company did not have to deliver the Discovery. Consequently this sum of R3000.00 is being charged for services and delivery never rendered;
10.3 R5 999.00 for the warranty. The cover note annexed to the warranty booklet indicates that only an amount of R 4 985.20 is payable. Therefore an additional amount of R1013.80 was paid to you by Wesbank, and which amount has to be repaid by our client to Wesbank, for the warranty but which is not the amount payable to SA Warranties.


In addition the initial deposit is reflected as being R16 000.00 and not R34 000.00 less the outstanding amount due to Wesbank being R14 774.40 as at 4 February 2010, i.e
R19 225.60. In other words an amount of R 3 225.60 is unaccounted for;
11. After signing the documentation, Michael produced a document in terms whereof our client was purchasing the Discovery voetstoots. Michael informed our client that she could not take delivery of the Discovery if she did not sign the document. She was advised that if anything was wrong with the Discovery, she must claim from her maintenance plan as he had come down so far with the price. Not only was this the first time any mention was made that the Discovery was being sold voetstoots but was our client in effect being illegally coerced into signing a document against her will. Out of desperation just to get the Discovery she signed the document;
12. Whilst our client was signing the abovementioned documentation, writer hereof waited outside at the used vehicle lot. At one stage Michael indicated to the writer hereof that he was taking the Discovery to have it refuelled. As he was driving out of the lot, writer hereof heard a loud noise coming from the right rear of the Discovery;
13. After Michael had returned with the Discovery and our client had finished signing the papers, Michael proceeded to hand the Discovery over to our client. It is at this stage that our client and writer hereof noticed several problems with the Discovery, namely:
13.1 The ignition key was falling apart and was held together with blue insulation tape.
13.2 Upon attempting to unlock the central locking of the Discovery only one door, being the front passenger's door, would unlock. Michael tried to explain this away by pretending as if the central locking had worked only a few minutes ago;
13.3 Several lights on the instrument panel remained on after the DFiscovery had been started. They included the TC (traction control) light, the ABS light and the descent warning indicator. Once again Michael tried to explain these warning indicators away by stating that they had not come on previously;
14. Despite these problems our client was eventually able to drive home with the Discovery.


15. However during the course of the next day the noise from the right rear wheel became worse. Writer hereof decided to inspect the right rear wheel and discovered that the brake pads were so worn down that metal was braking on metal and the brake disc had been worn away.This, as any mechanic and second hand dealer will know, is extremely dangerous as not only is a vehicle not able to brake properly but can the brakes seize up, thereby causing the vehicle to lose control and cause a serious accident, with a possibility of injuries and/or loss of life;
16. It was also discovered that no users manual or service history was in the Discovery;
17. On the morning of the 4th February 2010 our client telephonically contacted Errol at your business and informed him of the problems. Our client was advised that she was to bring the Discovery to your business premises immediately to enable your company to effect the necessary repairs. Writer hereof personally took the Discovery to Errol and requested him to have the brakes fixed as well as the central locking system. He was also advised that it had to be done before 16:30 the same day as we lived on a farm 11 kilometres from town and had no other means of transport. In the presence of writer hereof the keys to the vehicle was given to a driver with instructions to take the Discovery to one Gerhard to have the brakes repaired before the end of the day;
18. At 13:00 writer hereof walked to your business premises to enquire whether the repairs to the Discovery was finished. Upon arrival one of the ladies phoned Gerhard to enquire about the progress of the repair of the Discovery. Writer hereof was handed the phone and he spoke to one Karlien at Gerhard's business. Writer hereof informed her that the Discovery must be repaired by that same afternoon as we had no other transport to get home. She indicated that the driver of your business had dropped the Discovery off with only instructions to repair the brakes. Nothing had been mentioned about the repairs having to be effected the same day. She advised writer hereof that she would speak to Gerhard and phone writer hereof back
19. The same afternoon Karlien phoned writer hereof and advised that the brake pads and disc would have to be replaced. These items had to be ordered and might only arrive the following day or Monday the 8th February 2010. During the discussion it transpired that the brakes were so bad that they could not allow us to take the Discovery before the brakes had been repaired as it was too dangerous to drive. They also informed writer hereof that they could not understand how the Discovery could have passed a roadworthy test in such a condition. This confirmed my suspicions. She told me to contact your business to discuss the problem;


20. Writer hereof immediately phoned your business and as Errol was away on business Jackie assisted. Writer hereof advised her of the problem, especially our transport problem. She told writer hereof that she would phone back;
21. After a few minutes she called writer hereof and from the outset indicated that our client had signed a voetstoots agreement and that our client would be liable for the costs of repairing the vehicle. This immediately infuriated writer hereof and he advised Jackie in no uncertain terms that a voetstoots agreement did not protect a seller from obvious defects in a vehicle. She was also advised that Michael had advised our client that he had had the brakes checked and nothing wrong had been found. Jackie once again indicated that she would call back;
22. After a few minutes Jackie phoned and indicated that they would repair the brakes at their cost and would give the Toyota Tazz back to our client as a loan vehicle to use whilst the Discovery was being repaired. She offered to have the Tazz delivered to writer hereof but he declined advising her that he would come to your premises to collect it;
23. On writer hereof's way to your business premises he stopped at the Greater Tzaneen Municipality to determine how a copy of the roadworthy report of the Discovery could be obtained. Writer was informed that the report would be at the testing centre but that they could give provide a computer printout indicating when and who tested the Discovery. Writer hereof was also advised by a member of the municipalitiy's staff to take the issue of the Discovery passing a roadworthy test with defective brakes further;
24. Upon writer hereof's arrival at your business he was told that the Tazz had been taken for a valet but instructions had been given to the driver to bring it back;
25. Whilst waiting writer hereof requested a copy of the Discovery's registration certificate to enable him to investigate the matter further at the municipality. This was given to him;
26. Writer hereof also requested a copy of the signed voetstoots agreement. He was quite surprised to be informed that the signed voetstoots agreement was no longer in our client's file and nobody knew what had happened to it. Writer was told that the signed agreement had incorrect figures on it not reflecting the discount given to our client and that he had to ask Michael where it was. In its place a new agreement had been drawn up;
27. After about an hour Jackie informed writer hereof that the Tazz was not available as the seats were wet and some of them had been removed. She arranged that our client could use a Golf and writer was handed the keys to it;


28. Later the afternoon our client and writer hereof returned to your business. Our client signed further documents but upon advice from myself refused to sign the new voetstoots agreement. It was also arranged that an Isuzu would be given to our client to use instead of the Golf as the gravel road to our house was not drivable with a normal passenger vehicle;
29. On Monday 8th February 2010 writer hereof was informed by a reliable source that in Tzaneen was located a business specialising in the maintenance and repairs of Land Rovers. Writer hereof proceeded to the business as per the directions given and arrived at Venture Overland. There writer hereof spoke to a member of the business and informed him about the warning lights which continuously burned on the instrument panel. Writer hereof was advised that it could be a broken sensor or something more serious. They would only be able to determine the reason for the warning lights if they could inspect the Discovery. Writer also informed them of a shudder in the Discovery when it was travelling in first gear. He was informed that it might be a loose engine mounting or bell housing. They confirmed that they specialised in Land Rovers, being the only vehicles they worked on, and that they had the necessary equipment to test and repair our client's Discovery. They were surprised to hear that the Discovery had been taken to another service centre as your company had via Hentie on several occasions in the past used their services to service Land Rovers. In fact one of the directors of your company had purchased a Land Rover through them;
30. Our client heard nothing further from your business until the afternoon of the 9th February 2010 when both she and writer hereof went to your business to find out when she could get her Discovery back. We were informed by Errol that the brakes had been repaired and the Discovery was with another business to install a new central locking system. This would apparently cost R4000.00. The Discovery would be finished on the 10th February 2010;
31. When writer hereof asked Errol about the warning lights which continually came on, he was told that we should wait a month until the warranty came into effect. This came as a great surprise to writer hereof, for the following reasons:
31.1 In terms of the warranty the effective date of the policy is on the date on which the policy was purchased (page 3 under heading Effective Date of Policy). The warranty would therefore have commenced on the 2nd February 2010;


31.2 SA Warranty does not accept liability for the cost of repairs or replacement where the cause of failure existed at the time of sale of the policy (page 11, point 1 under heading Exclusions). This would mean that SA Warranties would not cover defects which were existent when our client purchased the Discovery;
31.3 Should anyone commit or attempt to obtain a benefit under the policy by improper means, all benefits shall immediately cease and the policy cancelled. (page 3 under the heading Fraud). This is in addition to the normal criminal charges which may be brought for insurance fraud. Any attempt by either yourselves or our client to have defects which were present at the time of purchasing the Discovery, repaired by SA Warranties subsequently would amount to fraud;
31.4 In addition a pre-delivery inspection report must be attached to the proposal form at point of sale for collection by the Administrator to ensure compliance (page 15 under heading PRE-DELIVERY INSPECTION REPORT). No such report was ever completed by your business;
32. In light of the above it is evident that:
32.1 No inspection report was done;
32.2 The warranty does not cover any of the present defects to the vehicle;
32.3 The suggestion by Errol that our client waits a month to have the warning lights sorted out so that the warranty can be used amounts to suggesting our client commits insurance fraud. Our client will most definitely not be a party to such criminal activity.

As a result of the circumstances surrounding the purchase of the Discovery and the type of actions taken by your staff, as laid out above, our client has lost all faith and trust in your company. Amongst other things she was lied to about obtaining financing for the vehicle, misled about the purchase price of the vehicle as well as the value which she would receive for the Tazz, coerced into signing a voetstoots agreement which two days later suddenly disappeared and misled about the condition of the vehicle especially the brakes, central locking system and the warning lights on the instrument panel. She was also advised to in effect attempt to commit insurance fraud.


She has therefore instructed us to advise you that she requires the following from your company:

1. A refund of the difference between the purchase price of R88 000.00 quoted by Michael and the amount of R95 000.00 which Wesbank has financed the Discovery and which our client has to pay, i.e. R7000.00;
2. A refund for both the excess which our client has been charged for SA Warranties warranty being the sum of R1013.80 as well as the R3000.00 which our client has to pay for the supposed service and delivery;
3. Proof of all repairs effected by yourselves to date;
4. The Discovery must be taken to Venture Overland or other authorised Land Rover service centre for a full and complete inspection and service. All defects must be repaired including those mentioned above. Written proof that the Discovery has been inspected, serviced and all defects repaired must be delivered to our client;
5. A pre-delivery inspection report must completed as required by SA Warranties and a copy thereof delivered to our client.

These requirements are to be met on or before close of business on the 19th February 2010.

Should you fail to comply with our client's demands, a complaint, with a request for a full investigation with possible criminal charges being laid, will be submitted to the following institutions:

1. Hyundai South Africa;
2. Independent Motor Industry Ombudsman;
3. SA Warranties;
4. Motor Industries Federation;
5. Wesbank; and
6. Greater Tzaneen Municipality.

In addition our client reserves her rights to take legal action for any damages sustained.

We await your urgent confirmation by close of business tomorrow 11 February 2010, that our client's demands will be adhered to. Failing receipt of such confirmation our client will take the necessary steps to protect her rights.