A 27-year-old woman from Gauteng is grappling with a distressing situation involving a luxury vehicle she purchased, with her excitement quickly turning into dismay following an alleged defect.
The woman, who wishes to remain anonymous for safety reasons, bought a brand-new Mercedes-Benz CLA 200 four-door coupé from Mercedes-Benz Centurion on March 28, 2026, at a cost of at least R923,000.
As a first-time buyer, she bought a brand-new car for reliability and peace of mind, but her happiness was short-lived. Just 37 days after taking delivery, during a long-distance journey from Gauteng to Mbombela in Mpumalanga, the car reportedly malfunctioned dramatically on May 5, 2026.
The vehicle allegedly reversed unexpectedly while in Drive (D1), resulting in it being towed back to Mercedes-Benz Centurion, where it remains to this day.
“I’ve been saving up for this car for at least two years, and with everything that has happened, my joy has literally turned into a nightmare,” she said.
She claims that her attempts to resolve the matter with the dealership were met with dissatisfaction, alleging that staff treated her dismissively, belittled her concerns, and failed to take her complaints seriously. Consequently, she refused to sign the dealership’s job card, instead requesting either a replacement vehicle or a full refund.
The dispute escalated to Mercedes-Benz South Africa after the parties reached what the woman describes as a deadlock regarding the vehicle’s inspection. She maintained that she was concerned that authorising the inspection would be interpreted as consent to accept the vehicle back after repairs.
On 14 May, Mercedes-Benz South Africa communicated in writing that any remedy for the defective vehicle would be based on the inspection results. However, after the inspection, she says she was informed of the diagnosis only verbally and has yet to receive a formal report. This lack of transparency deepened her frustration, particularly when a subsequent letter dated 28 May contained a different diagnosis from the one allegedly communicated to her verbally.
The woman claims that on the phone, she was told that the car had an issue with the software update. She received another call claiming the issue was with the gearbox.
On the 28 May letter, seen by IOL, the dealership said the vehicle presented symptoms whereby it was unable to pull away from an incline after it was parked.
The letter added that this was software-related rather than mechanical in nature, as a result, this constitutes a minor repair.
“Following additional diagnostic procedures, a fault code was identified and stored within the transmission control unit. Following further engagement with our technical team in Germany, it was recommended that the transmission control unit be replaced. We are pleased to confirm that the part has now been invoiced in Germany, and we are currently awaiting airline bookings for shipment to South Africa,” read the letter.
However, the woman disputed the dealership’s explanation saying the car was not on an incline.
“The car was on a flat surface when it refused to accelerate forward, and it reversed instead.”
Despite her refusal to consent to repairs, she claims Mercedes-Benz South Africa proceeded on the assumption that the vehicle will be repaired, while dismissing her requests for either a full refund or a replacement vehicle.
Adding to her woes, she returned a courtesy vehicle in compliance with the dealership’s 10-day policy, leaving her without temporary transport. She expressed disappointment that Mercedes-Benz has not provided a timeline for the arrival of replacement parts from Germany.
“This was easy. They could have exchanged the car and given me the exact same model, but they refused and wanted to fix the one that I bought. What assurance do I have that it won’t malfunction again?” she asked.
“The car malfunctioned within a month of purchase. What other defects does it have that I don’t know about? A brand-new car is already under repair for something I didn’t even cause, and I’m expected to just ignore that?” she continued.
“According to the Consumer Protection Act if a car fails to meet reasonable quality standards within six months of delivery, I have the legal right to return it, and I can choose my own remedy. I want a refund or a replacement, but the dealership wants to force their remedy on me,” she said.
Sounding frustrated, the woman said she believes the dealership is taking advantage of her because of her race and age.
“I honestly feel like I’m being discriminated against because of my race and age. I have been treated with so much disdain, and I doubt I would have been given the same treatment if I were of a different race,” she said.
“I want a full refund so that I can buy another vehicle,” she added. “This experience has been traumatic, and I no longer have confidence in the vehicle.”
The dispute has also extended to the financing arrangement. She paid a R200,000 deposit towards the purchase, while the remaining balance was financed through Absa. She says she approached the bank in an attempt to cancel the transaction but was unsuccessful.
“Absa was negligent because they told me they won’t cancel the instalment sale agreement because it’s a minor issue before even Mercedes sent the later dated 28 May leading me to believe that Absa is complicit in the unfair treatment I’m experiencing from Mercedes,” she said.
Absa confirmed that it received a complaint from a customer seeking to cancel an instalment sale agreement after alleging that a recently purchased Mercedes-Benz vehicle developed a fault within weeks of delivery.
“The customer sought assistance after the dealership declined to cancel the transaction pending an inspection of the vehicle.”
According to the bank, it subsequently engaged with the Mercedes-Benz dealer principal, who advised that Mercedes-Benz South Africa was handling the matter. However, the bank said the customer declined to sign a job card required to authorise diagnostic testing.
The bank said signing the document is a standard procedure and does not result in any costs to the customer, particularly as the vehicle remains under warranty. Absa added that it informed the customer that Mercedes-Benz could not proceed without her authorisation and that consent was eventually provided on 13 May 2026.
“In line with the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), the dealer must be afforded an opportunity to investigate whether the defect indeed exists or not. As prescribed in the CPA, if the customer has complained about a defect during the first six months of the sale, then once the dealer has confirmed that there is indeed a defect in the vehicle, only the customer may decide if they want: a repair of the vehicle; replacement of the vehicle; or cancellation of the deal, return of the vehicle and refund of the amounts paid by the customer in relation to the vehicle,” said the bank.
The bank also rejected allegations that it had characterised the reported issue as a “minor” defect before Mercedes-Benz had completed its assessment.
According to Absa, it informed the customer on 20 May that it was still working with the dealership and would continue monitoring the matter until an outcome was reached. It said the customer was never advised that the issue had been deemed minor.
Absa confirmed that it had consulted with Mercedes-Benz regarding the complaint but denied aligning itself with the manufacturer’s position.
“The bank remains committed to supporting customers by providing guidance on available avenues for resolution and ensuring all interactions align with principles of fairness, transparency and accountability,” it said.
Absa added that its conduct is guided by the Treating Customers Fairly principles and that it does not side with suppliers against customers but rather investigates complaints on their merits.
Meanwhile, Mercedes-Benz South Africa confirmed that it was in direct contact with the customer to better understand the issues raised and to ensure the matter is handled appropriately.
The luxury vehicle manufacturer declined to provide further details, citing its obligations under the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) and company policy.
“We are unable to disclose any customer-specific information, including details relating to individual complaints, technical assessments, or interactions,” the company said.
In an effort to seek independent intervention, the woman has lodged a complaint with the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) and is awaiting further engagement regarding the matter.
IOL News
Get your news on the go. Download the latest IOL App for Android and IOS now.
Sinenhlanhla Masilela
iol.co.za
