Court rules in favour of woman seeking return of Hyundai H1 from R237,000 unauthorised storage



The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has ruled that a woman who had her car kept in a storage without her consent can get her car back without paying the R237,000 fees.

Carol Bahane bought a Hyundai TQ H1 in December 2021 shortly after that, the vehicle started giving her issues and was sent to various businesses for repairs.

Sometime October 2022 the vehicle started losing power and she took it to ATE Automotive Repairs to be fixed. She was informed that there is not anything wrong with the vehicle except that there is a wire loose and it will cost R1,000 to fix the issue.

In January 2023, she called ATE and informed them that the vehicle had broken down in December 2022, however, the dealership refused to pay for the repairs as they had previously repaired the vehicle.

Despite the refusal, they advised her tow the vehicle to their workshop, and they will fix it, which she did. Few days later, ATE informed her that they will not fix the vehicle because it is not their fault that the turbo broke down and sent her report claiming that the turbo had contaminated oil.

In March, she sought relief at the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) in an attempt to get the vehicle replaced but the claim was rejected.

ATE emailed Bahane in June 2023, providing a quote of over R17,000 for repairs. Notably, the quote did not include storage costs. She was also informed that the car would be moved to legal storage on July 7, 2023.

Bahane replied that she had reported the matter to the National Consumer Commission (NCC) but assured ATE that she will fetch her vehicle as she had not accepted the quote. However, when she went to the office before July 7, accompanied by members of the South African Police Service to collect her vehicle, she discovered that it had already been sent to Abandoned Vehicle and Truck Solution without her consent.

She later received contact from someone working at Abandoned Vehicle and Truck Solution and the person sent her a form to sign. She refused to sign the form as she has not contracted with them, nor did she know whether they indeed had the vehicle. The person refused to disclose the storage address until she had signed the form.

Bahane approached the high court for relief, arguing that she would suffer irreparable harm if her vehicle, which she is still financing, was not returned to her.

In response, ATE and the storage company said the vehicle would not be released as Bahane had failed to honour payments for the storage which accumulated daily charges.

Presiding over the matter, acting judge LM du Plessis said when ATE sent Bahane a quote in June 2022, it was for repairs and not for storage.

Judge du Plessis further noted that Bahane was not bound by the cession agreement as ATE bound her to this agreement to hold possession of her car.

The judge remarked that Bahane had tried to recover her vehicle prior to July 7, the date specified by ATE for its transfer to legal storage. Nevertheless, she found that the vehicle was no longer present on the site.

“In my view there is no evidence that the applicant accepted the quote of June 29, 2023, as she decided to remove her vehicle,” said the judge.

The judge instructed ATE and Abandoned Vehicle and Truck Solutions to return possession of a Hyundai TQ H1 vehicle to Behane within 10 days of the ruling, without any storage fees.

If the companies do not comply with the ruling, the judge stated that the sheriff is empowered and instructed to seize the vehicle wherever it may be located and to deliver it to Bahane or her legal representatives.

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL News

Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel. 

 

 

 



Source link

Leave comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *.