A Gauteng man who became embroiled in a bitter dispute with a used-car dealership after discovering that a vehicle he had purchased allegedly had tampered mileage and an undisclosed accident history has finally received a refund after returning the car.
The refund comes after IOL reported that Jan Joubert Jooste was in a dispute with GP Combrink Car Sales CC after purchasing a 2019 Toyota Corolla towards the end of 2025 through finance provided by Absa.
The vehicle was purchased for approximately R230,000, with monthly repayments of more than R5,200 before the account was eventually settled.
Jooste said he paid the bank at least R300,000.
According to Jooste, the sales agreement recorded the vehicle’s mileage at 76,569km at the time of purchase.
Jooste said the issue started when he discovered alleged irregularities in February 2026 after he took the vehicle in for a routine service at Toyota.
He said during the service, he discovered the vehicle had already accumulated approximately 90,000km during 2023, creating concerns regarding the accuracy of the odometer reading reflected at the time of sale.
After conducting his own investigation, Jooste managed to trace the previous owner, who allegedly provided crucial information about the vehicle’s past.
He said the previous owner revealed that she was involved in an accident, and the car was subsequently written off, information which Jooste claims was never shared by the dealership. Â
“She sent me a photo of the accident and said she was no longer driving it because it was written off after the accident,” he said.
The dismayed Jooste said he confronted the dealership with the new information and he was ignored.
Sounding relieved, Jooste said he was grateful that he has received his refund; however, he was aggrieved that he didn’t receive all of his installments after Absa made deductions for usage of the vehicle.
Jooste said he received R261,000 instead of the R300,000 he had paid.
“I still believe that under Section 56(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, I should have also been refunded all my instalments given the circumstances surrounding the transaction,” he said.
“The distinction is important: Section 20 deals with the return of goods and can include deductions for usage, while Section 56(2) applies where goods are defective or not as represented and provides for a remedy that is intended to place the consumer in the position, they were in before the transaction, without penalising normal use.
“In this case, there is documented evidence of mileage discrepancies, which raises serious concerns about how the vehicle was represented at the point of sale. This is why I believe Section 56(2) should have been applied,” he added.
Jooste said he was presented with a calculation and deduction framework for the vehicle usage, and he accepted because wanted to bring the matter to conclusion.
“My acceptance was not as an admission that I agreed with the legal interpretation applied. Ultimately, my view is that no contractual clause or settlement term should override consumer protection law where the underlying transaction is fundamentally flawed,” he added.
Meanwhile, Absa Vehicle and Asset Finance confirmed that Jooste received his refund and said he was provided a detailed explanation of the reasons for the offer which was in line with legal guidance.
“The client indicated that he was satisfied with the discussion and accepted the offer. The bank subsequently followed up with the client, and he provided written confirmation of his acceptance,” the bank added.
IOL News Â
Get your news on the go. Download the latest IOL App for Android and IOS now.
Sinenhlanhla Masilela
iol.co.za
