10 months without new car: KZN man fights over repairs after VW T-Cross crashed while at dealership - IOL

New VW T-Cross damaged at dealership while awaiting warranty repairs.

A Durban man who has continued paying for his nearly new Volkswagen T-Cross while it has remained at a dealership since November 2025 is locked in a dispute over damage the vehicle sustained while in the dealership’s custody.

Sean Rameshar bought the Volkswagen T-Cross R-Line from VW Cross Germiston in Johannesburg on August 4, 2025.

About three months later, after travelling approximately 9,800km, Rameshar said the vehicle developed a loud noise from the front wheel area and began shuddering heavily.

At the time, he was in Durban and took the vehicle to Alpine Volkswagen Hillcrest, a nearest authorised Volkswagen dealership, for inspection.

Rameshar said the vehicle was initially taken to the dealership because of the mechanical problem.

He was later informed telephonically that there was a problem with a CV joint and that the vehicle was not safe to drive.

He had no objection to the original mechanical defect being addressed under warranty, and the dealership agreed to retain the vehicle while the matter was attended to.

He said he was waiting for further documentation setting out the dealership’s technical findings and proposed repairs when the situation changed after he was informed that his T-Cross had been involved in a collision while parked on the dealership’s premises.

Rameshar said he was told that another customer had driven into a restricted area at the dealership and collided with his T-Cross, damaging the rear bumper and rear fender area.

He requested CCTV footage and an incident report relating to the collision.

Although he later received the CCTV footage, Rameshar said he was never provided with a copy of the incident report.

Alpine Volkswagen Hillcrest confirmed that the T-Cross was damaged by another customer while it was at the dealership.

Dealer Principal Darryl Chetty said the vehicle was at the dealership on November 6, 2025, for a warranty repair to its CV joint and was parked in the rear yard, which is not accessible to the public except through the workshop.

According to Chetty, the other driver was a member of the public who had arrived at the dealership as a customer without a booking.

“He arrived without a booking, and our service advisor told him to wait at the entrance while a job card was prepared. He ignored that instruction and drove into the rear yard without anyone's permission,” Chetty said.

He said the driver collided with Rameshar’s vehicle while trying to pass between a fence and the T-Cross.

The dealership said the driver had been identified but could not disclose his identity to Rameshar, but his details were contained in an incident report submitted to the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) after Rameshar filled a compliant. 

Chetty said the dealership had offered to pay for the repairs itself as a gesture of goodwill, meaning Rameshar would not have to claim from his own insurer or deal with the other driver.

Alpine Volkswagen Hillcrest confirmed that the T-Cross was damaged by another customer while it was at the dealership.

Rameshar said the CCTV footage raised questions about how his vehicle had been parked.

According to him, the footage shows that the T-Cross was not parked entirely within a designated parking bay, with the rear of the vehicle protruding beyond the parking area.

He believes this is relevant to whether reasonable care was taken when storing his vehicle while it was in the dealership’s custody.

Rameshar also questioned how the other customer was able to access the restricted rear yard and whether the position of his vehicle increased its exposure to the collision.

The incident sparked a dispute over how the damage should be repaired.

Rameshar said the dealership initially provided a quotation proposing repairs to the bumper rather than replacing it, along with paint blending and other bodywork.

He rejected the proposal, arguing that the vehicle was new and that accident repairs could negatively affect its future resale and trade-in value.

Rameshar said he was prepared to accept the repairs to the original factory fault but did not want accident repairs that could reduce the vehicle’s value.

According to Rameshar, the dealership later suggested replacing the bumper with a factory part carrying the correct paint specification and carrying out a paintless repair to the damaged section.

He said he was prepared to accept this proposal but wanted a formal quotation confirming exactly what work would be carried out.

However, Rameshar said the dealership could not provide the quotation he requested.

He then proposed three possible solutions: that the dealership provide a quotation confirming that the bumper would be replaced and the vehicle repaired without compromising its value; that he be given a replacement vehicle; or that he be offered a comparable vehicle with the same mileage and equivalent service and motor plans.

The dealership said replacing the bumper would not necessarily resolve concerns about paint matching because a new factory bumper would still have to be painted to match the vehicle.

The dealership said it had considered the requests but could not agree to them.

Chetty said Rameshar bought the vehicle from another Volkswagen dealership and that Alpine Volkswagen Hillcrest was not a party to the original sale or the separate finance agreement.

He said the dealership also considered replacement or cancellation disproportionate because the damage was cosmetic and could be fully repaired.

On Rameshar’s request for a new factory bumper, Chetty said replacing the bumper would not necessarily resolve concerns about paint matching because a new factory bumper would still have to be painted to match the vehicle.

He said differences between paint batches meant that fitting a new bumper did not provide a better guarantee of a colour match.

According to Chetty, a qualified, manufacturer-approved repairer could repair and respray the original bumper according to Volkswagen specifications, with paintless repair used where possible.

The dealership further said it had been advised by its lawyers that Rameshar was not legally entitled to the relief he was seeking from the dealership.

In response, Rameshar said he's aware that VW Hillcrest did not originally sell him the vehicle and that the finance agreement was with a separate institution.

However, he argued that this did not address the combined effect of the factory fault and the accident damage sustained after he entrusted the vehicle to the authorised dealership.

"I am not seeking an unreasonable windfall. I am seeking a fair resolution that places me, as closely as reasonably possible, in the position I was in before I entrusted my undamaged vehicle to the dealership," he said.

Rameshar has also relied on provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) which deals with a supplier’s responsibilities when it has possession of property belonging to another person, including the degree of care, diligence and skill reasonably expected of someone responsible for another person’s property.

He has also referred to Section 54, which deals with a consumer’s rights when services are performed and includes provisions relating to the return of property in at least as good a condition as when it was made available to the supplier, having regard to the circumstances.

Rameshar argued that he handed the dealership an undamaged, nearly new vehicle with a factory-related mechanical fault and should not simply be expected to accept a vehicle that also sustained collision damage while in the dealership’s custody.

The dealership said replacing the bumper would not necessarily resolve concerns about paint matching because a new factory bumper would still have to be painted to match the vehicle.

The dealership maintained that the proposed repairs are capable of restoring the T-Cross to its pre-accident condition.

He said the dealership had also provided Rameshar with a letter regarding the vehicle’s future trade-in value.

In addition, the dealership maintained that Rameshar could pursue a claim against the driver who caused the collision if he did not wish to accept its repair offer.

Its offer to repair the vehicle, Chetty said, was a gesture of goodwill and was not an admission of liability.

Rameshar, however, said his concern goes beyond whether the vehicle can physically be repaired.

He insisted that he wanted written confirmation of the precise repairs and clarity on whether the collision and subsequent bodywork could affect the vehicle’s future trade-in or resale value.

He said remained concerned that an almost-new vehicle that had not previously sustained collision damage will now have a history of body repairs and painting because of an accident that occurred while it was at the dealership.

“Remember, the car was new and already had the CV-joint issue. I was willing to accept those repairs, but after the crash I was then being asked to accept accident repairs as well,” Rameshar said.

“Where does that leave the future value of my vehicle?”

Chetty provided IOL with a job card which was signed by Rameshar and it stated that: "We are not responsible for loss or damage to cars or articles left in cars in case of fire or theft or any case beyond our control."

Rameshar acknowledged the signature but insisted that the document doesn't absolve the dealership from any wrongdoing considering the position where they had parked the car. 

"Who parked the vehicle with the back protruding in the area and who allowed the customer to drive through the boom gate into their secure holding area?" asked Rameshar. 

He also referred to the CCTV footage, which he said shows the T-Cross was not parked entirely within its designated bay.

Rameshar argued that these circumstances should be considered when determining whether reasonable care was exercised over his vehicle.

The dispute also involved a courtesy vehicle that Rameshar said had initially been promised to him.

He said that when he went to the dealership to collect the courtesy vehicle, he was told there was no vehicle available and that he first had to authorise repairs before one could be released.

The dealership said it offered Rameshar a courtesy vehicle for the period of the repairs.

Chetty said because Rameshar did not authorise the repair, the work did not start, and no courtesy vehicle was issued.

“Linking a courtesy vehicle to the repair period is standard practice,” he said.

Rameshar said the vehicle has remained at VW Hillcrest since November 6, 2025. He has been paying for the car for 10 months while not having access to it.

The dealership said the warranty repair to the CV joint had since been completed and that the vehicle was mobile and roadworthy.

Rameshar, however, said the CV-joint replacement was ultimately carried out without his authorisation.

He maintained that his initial willingness to have the mechanical problem investigated should not be regarded as blanket authorisation for work to be carried out without his approval.

Furthermore, Chetty said no body repairs had been carried out because they had not been authorised.

He said the vehicle remains at the dealership and that Rameshar is welcome to authorise the repair or collect it at any time.

The dealership also said it had not charged him storage since the collision.

It added that Rameshar leaves the vehicle on its premises at his own risk.

Meanwhile, Rameshar lodged a complaint with the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa following the incident.

The dealership said it has cooperated with the MIOSA process and provided the Ombudsman with its formal response and supporting documentation, including the incident report.