/ 4 June 2003

Judgement day

The customer is all too often ignorant. The industry’s hugely arrogant.

Like it or not this is the attitude the opponents tend to adopt towards each other when things go sour between the car seller and the buyer.

The motorist believes that the manufacturer doesn’t care what happens to his car once the cheque’s been cashed and the vehicle manufacturer or distributor can’t believe that the customer won’t listen to reason. When things get to this stage there’s very rarely a clear-cut winner — everybody gets hurt.

That is why the newly established office of adjudicator for the motor industry should be a very good thing. The obvious question, though, is who’s paying for it? And, when we learn that the manufacturers and importers are, we have to raise the next point. Does a motorist really stand to gain anything from it? According to Johan van Vreden, one of the two men managing the office, they do.

“Both parties have to agree beforehand that they will accept the ruling of the adjudicator,” he says. “But under our South African Constitution it’s virtually impossible to sign away your common-law rights. If you really believe that you have a case after we’ve ruled to the contrary you can still take it to court.” You’d better be prepared to spend lots of money if you’re wrong, though.

“I must make it clear that we don’t represent either the customer or the industry in a dispute,” says Van Vreden, formerly head of the Automobile Association’s technical service. “We try to make a judgement based on three factors — good engineering practice, good customer service practice and fair play. Rather than try to reinvent the wheel we’ve studied how this is done overseas, as well as in other sectors such as insurance and banking. We’ve found that, as in those industries, the problem is very often aggravated by a lack of clear communication.”

Van Vreden and his partner, motoring journalist Adri Bezuidenhout, see their role as being partly educational. “When a customer comes to us with a complaint we first see if they’ve approached the problem through the correct channels and advise them on what to do if they haven’t,” Van Vreden says. “Once it is clear that they really are at loggerheads we’ll agree to adjudicate on the matter. That gets rid of the emotions on both sides.” Turnaround time is currently under a month but that will probably become longer as the complaints roll in.

If you have a problem Van Vreden can be contacted on (012) 348 9303 or [email protected]. Correspondence should be kept to the point and should include the following: Name and contact details, make and model of car, where and when it was purchased, registration number, engine/chassis numbers, mileage and a short explanation of the problem.

There is no charge but all queries must be in writing.

Spare change

Here’s proof that the motor industry can respond to criticism — especially if it’s costing them sales. In the 2000 Kinsey Report on the price of car parts Fiat’s products compared very unfavourably with the opposition. The parts basket for their Palio 1,2 totalled R33 036 — over 65% of the purchase cost of the car.

Several months later Fiat Auto South Africa announced a substantial reduction in the cost of spares. Motoring journalist Malcolm Kinsey left the dust to settle for a while and then went shopping again.

The same basket of spares suddenly cost R21 706 — a massive reduction, especially when you consider the battering the rand has taken of late. Radiators that cost more than R1 600 in 2000 have been replaced by locally manufactured components that sell for less than R700. A R1 943 front strut/shock absorber assembly now sells for R708 and a front bumper skin that cost R2 810 a year ago will now set you back less than half of this amount.

Great news, Fiat. But why did it take a Kinsey Report to put a cracker up your arse?