A Gauteng woman has been left reeling after she was charged R160,000 for a new engine just two days after her vehicle was serviced.
Motshidisi Matambuye said her ordeal began shortly after she collected her Kia Rio from Kia Weltevreden Park, Roodepoort, where it had undergone a routine service in July 2024.
The 33-year-old Soweto resident said the vehicle began overheating within 48 hours of being returned to her. Believing the issue was linked to the recent service, she contacted the dealership to report the problem.
According to Matambuye, she was advised that the overheating was caused by a faulty temperature switch, which was subsequently replaced. However, the problem allegedly persisted.
Further inspections later revealed what the dealership described as internal engine damage, including a failed head gasket. Matambuye was subsequently informed that the engine had sustained significant damage and would need to be replaced at a cost of R160,000.
She said the quote came as a shock, particularly as the vehicle had not shown any signs of overheating or major mechanical failure prior to the service.
Kia’s warranty department later offered to cover 50% of the parts cost, leaving Matambuye responsible for approximately R65,000, including the full labour charges.
Disappointed by the outcome, Matambuye described the decision as unreasonable, citing the initial misdiagnosis and the fact that the overheating began only after the vehicle was serviced. She requested that the dealership cover the full cost of repairs as a goodwill gesture.
“The car was fine when I drove it to the dealership, and suddenly there was overheating after they serviced it. The issue only started after it came back from them. I don’t understand why I have to pay 50% for damage that I didn’t cause,” she said.
Matambuye provided IOL with conversations she had with a Kia representative who promised that any further repairs on the car will be covered under the goodwill warranty. The only amount she knew she had to pay was the R1,700 to replace the temperature switch.
“I gave them to go ahead to replace the temperature switch, and I fetched the car when they were done. The same day, the car started overheating again and I took it back and that’s when they came with a new diagnosis and the exuberant R160,000 charge and telling me I had to pay half of the amount,” she said.
In an email sent to the representative, Matambuye expressed her disappointment and explained that she already incurred costs on the first repairs, which she concluded as a misdiagnosis.
“The ongoing issue points to a progressive fault that may have existed at the time of the initial inspection. I believe it would be fair and reasonable, under the circumstances, for Kia to absorb the full cost of the repair as part of its goodwill policy, considering the fact that the vehicle has been consistently serviced by Kia.
“Also, I acted in good faith and promptly returned the car when the issue reoccurred. No negligence has occurred on my part,” she wrote on the email.
Matambuye acknowledged that the vehicle had missed two services at the time it was taken in. However, she said the car was rarely used.
“The car was mostly parked because I use my work vehicle. So how could the engine get damaged if the car hadn’t been driven for a year?” she asked.
Feeling aggrieved, Matambuye lodged a complaint with the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA). However, the complaint was dismissed after it was noted that documentation showed the radiator reservoir bottle was cracked prior to repairs, which could have contributed to the overheating.
MIOSA further stated that no concrete evidence had been submitted to prove that the dealership’s repair work caused the engine damage.
“Having considered the submissions received, this office is unable to support the expectations of the complainant as presented,” MIOSA concluded.
In a recent ruling, the ombudsman directed Matambuye to either authorise the repairs or arrange for the removal of her vehicle within 15 business days to avoid storage fees.
In response, Kia confirmed that the vehicle was brought to the dealership in July 2024 with existing cooling system leaks and that the cooling system which was already compromised at the time.
“These items were repaired, and a service was performed on the vehicle. The vehicle was only collected several months later, in December 2024,” the company said.
Kia further stated that in January 2025, Matambuye raised concerns about overheating. Repeated inspections and test drives conducted by the dealership did not confirm an active overheating condition at that stage.
She returned again in February 2025 with an engine warning light illuminated on the dashboard. “As part of a standard diagnostic process, a temperature sensor was replaced to rule out a faulty reading, and the vehicle was returned,” Kia said.
In May 2025, Matambuye returned the vehicle once more, prompting more extensive investigations, during which internal engine damage was identified.
“Based on Kia’s technical assessment, there is no evidence linking the routine service work carried out in July 2024 to the engine failure that later occurred,” the company said.
The dealership added that at the time of service, the vehicle was out of warranty, had missed two major scheduled services, and showed signs of prior accident damage to the front of the vehicle.
“These factors collectively increase the risk of mechanical failure over time,” Kia said.
Kia said even though it was not legally obliged to contribute to the repair costs, it offered price assistance on parts as a goodwill gesture but could not absorb the full cost of repairs.
Kia maintained that the matter was handled in line with standard technical and customer service processes and noted that MIOSA ultimately found in its favour.
IOL News
Get your news on the go. Download the latest IOL App for Android and IOS now.
Sinenhlanhla Masilela
iol.co.za
