Sean Rameshar, a Durban resident, purchased a Volkswagen T-Cross R-Line from VW Cross Germiston in Johannesburg on August 4, 2025. Three months later, he took the vehicle to Alpine Volkswagen Hillcrest in Durban for inspection due to a loud noise and shuddering from the front wheel area. The dealership identified a mechanical fault with the CV joint and agreed to retain the vehicle for warranty repairs. However, before the repairs could be completed, the vehicle was involved in a collision while parked on the dealership's premises.
According to Rameshar, the collision occurred when another customer drove into a restricted area at the dealership and damaged the rear bumper and rear fender area of his vehicle. He requested CCTV footage and an incident report, which he later received, but claims he was not 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 for warranty repairs. Dealer Principal Darryl Chetty stated that the vehicle was parked in the rear yard, which is not accessible to the public, but the other driver ignored instructions and drove into the restricted area.
The dealership offered to pay for the repairs as a gesture of goodwill, but Rameshar rejected the initial proposal, arguing that the repairs could negatively affect the vehicle's resale and trade-in value. He requested that the bumper be replaced with a factory part and a paintless repair be carried out. However, the dealership claimed that replacing the bumper would not guarantee a perfect paint match, as a new bumper would still need to be painted to match the vehicle. Rameshar then proposed three possible solutions: a formal quotation for the repairs, a replacement vehicle, or a comparable vehicle with the same mileage and equivalent service and motor plans.
The dealership rejected Rameshar's proposals, stating that replacing the bumper was disproportionate and that the damage was cosmetic and could be fully repaired. Chetty argued that a qualified, manufacturer-approved repairer could repair and respray the original bumper according to Volkswagen specifications. The dealership also claimed that they were advised by their lawyers that Rameshar was not legally entitled to the relief he was seeking. Rameshar countered that he was not seeking an unreasonable windfall, but a fair resolution that would place him in the position he was in before the vehicle was damaged.
Rameshar has been without his vehicle for 10 months, and the dispute has been ongoing. He purchased the vehicle on August 4, 2025, and it had only traveled approximately 9,800km when the mechanical fault occurred. The vehicle's warranty repairs were never completed due to the collision, and Rameshar has been paying for the vehicle while it remains at the dealership. The incident has sparked a dispute over liability and the extent of the repairs needed.
The Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) was involved in the dispute, and the dealership submitted an incident report to the ombudsman after Rameshar filed a complaint. The dealership identified the driver responsible for the collision but could not disclose their identity to Rameshar. The incident has raised concerns about the safety and security of vehicles left at dealerships for repairs.
The dispute between Rameshar and Alpine Volkswagen Hillcrest highlights the complexities of vehicle repairs and liability. Rameshar's case has been ongoing for 10 months, and he remains without his vehicle. The dealership has offered to repair the vehicle, but Rameshar is seeking a more comprehensive resolution. The incident serves as a reminder for vehicle owners to carefully review the terms and conditions of warranty repairs and to ensure that their vehicles are properly secured while in a dealership's custody.
Key points
- A Durban man has been without his Volkswagen T-Cross for 10 months due to a dispute over repairs after the vehicle was damaged while in a dealership's custody.
- The dealership has offered to pay for the repairs, but the owner is seeking a more comprehensive resolution, including a replacement vehicle or a comparable vehicle with the same mileage and equivalent service and motor plans.
- The dispute highlights the complexities of vehicle repairs and liability, and the importance of carefully reviewing the terms and conditions of warranty repairs.
