Moksham Soundarajan claims he was sold an unroadworthy car.
Image: Supplied
A recent consumer dispute involving a high-performance vehicle has sparked new concerns regarding vehicle safety, dealership practices, and the reliability of South Africa’s roadworthy certification system.
The case centres on a 2021 Toyota GR Yaris purchased from WP Motors, with the buyer alleging that the dealership knowingly sold an unroadworthy vehicle and misrepresented critical safety features.
Moksham Soundarajan bought the R600,000 car in July 2025 after trading in his 2019 Honda CR-V which was sold by the dealership during the dispute.
The dispute comes a year after the same dealership was fined R200,000 by the National Consumer Tribunal when a client, Fernell Waydon Pretorius, successfully fought for a R276,000 refund when the car he had purchased broke down two days into ownership.
The dealership indicated that it was appealing the ruling.
Soundarajan, an engineer by profession, said his Honda was still in a good condition when he traded it in; he bought the Yaris because he was fulfilling a dream he once had.
“There was the passing of a cousin who I grew up with that is the same age as me, so the grief and the loss of that cousin made me really consider living my dreams before it's too late. But this dream has turned into a nightmare,” he said.
He said the vehicle had multiple critical defects at the time of delivery, including tyres worn “to the canvas” and a cracked aftermarket exhaust system that allowed fumes to enter the cabin.
He claimed that shortly after taking possession of the car in Cape Town, he noticed fumes during a roughly 400km drive to Mossel Bay. The issue was reportedly confirmed the same day by a family member, after which the dealership was notified.
“There was a lot of misrepresentation from the dealership. The car had run-flat tyres and no spare wheel or repair kit. There was also a mileage discrepancy of 1,129km between what was advertised and what was delivered,” he said.
According to Soundarajan, a written admission from a regional manager at DEKRA confirmed that the vehicle’s Roadworthy Certificate had been issued in error.
The admission allegedly stated that the dealership was aware that the tyres required replacement before delivery but proceeded with the sale regardless.
“I spoke to the dealer, and they were aware that the tyres needed to be replaced,” he said.
He further claimed that the car was equipped with standard Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tyres whereas the dealership had alleged that the vehicle was fitted with run-flat tyres.
Despite offering a chance for the dealership to make amends, Soundarajan claimed WP Motors proposed a make-do repair of the faulty exhaust rather than replacing it with an original part - an option he understandably rejected due to safety concerns.
Additionally, the dealership's offer to partially replace the tyres, alongside their refusal to provide a rental vehicle unless he accepted the proposed solution, further complicated matters.
Soundarajan made the difficult choice to cancel the sale, but he claimed WP Motors refused to cancel the deal and demanded a cancellation fee of R122,812.52 along with a full, final settlement that would waive his statutory rights - a proposal he described as utterly unreasonable.
Despite continuing to pay the monthly instalments, he said he stopped using the car in August 2025 due to safety concerns.
The situation worsened when he discovered that WP Motors had sold his trade-in vehicle despite his explicit instructions not to do so until the dispute was resolved.
“This has caused a lot of financial strain because I’m paying for something that I’m not using. I requested that they don’t sell my car until we resolve this issue and they sold it. Now I have to use alternative means of transportation so that I can be mobile,” he said.
Soundarajan claimed he specifically told the former manager Gareth Kruth to hold on to his Honda until the dispute was resolved.
Speaking to IOL, Kurth defended the dealership's actions, asserting that Soundarajan had no right to claim ownership of a vehicle once it had been traded-in.
“No previous owner can prevent a dealer from selling a car that belongs to them. He should have held onto the car and not trade it in or sell it if there were any uncertainty. He asked us not to sell the car after the car has been sold already,” he said.
He added that he was not involved in the sale of the car as he was not a salesman.
“I'm definitely not going to entertain anything that Moksham claims. I wasn't involved in the sale as I am not a salesman and when a client bends the truth to fit their agenda, I distance myself as there's no reasoning with them," he said.
Regarding the misrepresentation of the tyres, Kurth said he does not recall any of the advertising specifying the tyres.
He admitted that two tyres were going to be replaced as courtesy. However, he said Soundarajan requested more than what a normal person would deem reasonable.
He added that it was surprising that Soundarajan raised issues about the discrepancy of the mileage, but he said nothing during the test drive.
"Why purchase the car and drive it 1,000km and then complain?" asked Kurth.
Kurth said the dealership tried to keep the advertised mileage as close to the real mileage as possible.
"No dealer on earth can update every car every day. That is also why you have a grace period of around 1,500km before or after your service is due normally for cars. They could (or may have) offered to refund the 1,100km based on AA rates, but Moksham was very unreasonable from the start and lost credibility," he said.
Meanwhile, the owner of the dealership, Phillip van der Merwe, insisted that the car was in immaculate condition when it was sold to Soundarajan.
“The client himself acknowledged that the exhaust issue may have occurred during his journey, as he only noticed it hundreds of kilometers later.”
To mitigate the exhaust issue, van der Merwe said he consulted Toyota, and was advised that a welding repair would be sufficient, as the issue was minor and located on a weld spot.
This statement was dismissed by Soundarajan who said that Toyota had never recommended a weld to an aftermarket exhaust.
"This was an undisclosed aftermarket exhaust not reduced to writing as per Section 5.3 of the purchase agreement. I elected as a consumer to get the exhaust replaced with the Original Equipment Manufacturer exhaust,'' he said.
Regarding the Roadworthy Certificate, the dealership said it does not issue these directly.
“It is possible that human error occurred in relation to the tyres. I take pride in the quality of my business, and once we became aware of the exhaust and tire concerns, we immediately offered to resolve them,” said
Van der Merwe added that he did not refuse to cancel the deal, instead, the dealership applied cancellation fees, which included the funds loaded onto his vehicle.
In correspondence with the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) via email, van der Merwe confirmed that the dealership was open to negotiating a settlement but noted that his proposals had not been accepted by Soundarajan's legal representation.
Van der Merwe confirmed that the dealership wanted Soundarajan to pay over R122,000 which included an allowance for his trade in, R13,000 AA rates per KM driven and if the dealership has to collect the vehicle, he would have to pay R6,500.
He said Soundarajan's lawyer countered with a lower offer, which he accepted, however, they have not heard from him since.
Soundarajan rejected this assertion and insisted that he didn't accept the dealership's lower offer because their lawyers rejected any reservation of his rights to challenge the legality of the sale at MIOSA or the National Consumer Commission.
'It was a take it or leave and they said they will not engage in further negotiations hence I referred the matter to MIOSA,'' he said.
Furthermore, van der Merwe said Soundarajan described his trade-in as being in showroom condition, yet the dealership had to invest over R20,000 to make it floor ready.
The matter is currently with MIOSA for consideration.