Accordian Investments (Pty) Ltd v National Consumer Commission (NCT/4061/2012/60(3) & 101(1)(P)CPA) [2013] ZANCT 6 (27 March 2013)

IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL

HELD IN CENTURION

Case number: NCT/4061/2012/60(3) & 101(1)(P)CPA

DATE:27/03/2013

In the matter between:

ACCORDIAN INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD …........................................APPLICANT

and

THE NATIONAL CONSUMER COMMISSION …..................................RESPONDENT

Coram:

Ms D Terblanche – Presiding member

Ms P Beck – Member

Mr X May – Member

Date of Hearing: 4 September 2012

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

The Applicant is Accordian Investments (Pty) Limited trading as Tata South Africa, a private company with limited liability incorporated in terms of the Company Laws of South Africa (hereinafter “the Applicant”).

The Applicant is the importer, distributor and marketer of Tata motor vehicles in South Africa. It has a network of dealerships, some owned by the Applicant, which are in the business of selling and servicing Tata motor vehicles.

The Respondent is the National Consumer Commission an organ of state within the public administration established in terms of Section 85 of the Consumer Protection Act (“the CPA”) (hereinafter “the Respondent”).

The Respondent issued a compliance notice dated 21 February 2012 against the Applicant on 01 March 2012.

The Applicant objects to the compliance notice and brings this application to review it to the National Consumer Tribunal (the Tribunal) in terms of the section 101(1) of the CPA, praying for an order to set it aside.

Respondent failed to file its answering affidavit within the time allowed for in the Rules for the Proceedings of Matters before the National Consumer Tribunal (“the Rules”).1

Respondent applied for condonation for the late filing of its Answering Affidavit. The application was not considered as -

The condonation application was not placed properly before the Tribunal in that it was not accompanied by a signed affidavit; and

The application was not served on the Applicant.

This matter was accordingly adjudicated on a default judgment application basis on the papers filed and Applicant‘s submissions at the hearing.

The compliance notice resulted from a complaint, lodged with the Respondent against the Applicant by a certain Mrs. N.I. Ntapu (“the Complainant”). The complaint has it’s genesis in Complainant’s purchase of a Tata Telcoline 4x4 from Tata North Coast (“the Dealership”). Neither the Complainant nor the dealership is cited as a party to these proceedings.

The Applicant based its objection to the compliance notice on the following grounds –

The transaction out of which the complaint arose took place on 8 July 2010, prior to the commencement of the CPA on 31 March 20112, and therefore the CPA does not apply to it;

The Respondent did not conduct an investigation into the complaints as required in terms of section 72 of the CPA before issuing the compliance notice;

The Applicant has not contravened any provisions of the CPA and in particular not the sections referred to in the compliance notice;

The steps that the Respondent ordered the Applicant to take as stipulated in the compliance notice are not steps directed at ensuring compliance with the provisions of the CPA that the Applicant is alleged to have transgressed and constitutes directions to the Applicant that falls outside of the Respondent’s powers.

BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The applicable and relevant chronology of events and uncontroverted facts are that

11.1 Prior to July 2010, the Complainant was the owner of a Tata Telcoline 4x4 2006 model motor vehicle, which she purchased in 2006;

11.2 The Complainant purchased the 2010 Tata Telcoline 4x4 vehicle on 08 July 2010; and

11.3 The Complainant took delivery of the 2010 Tata Telcoline 4x4 on 17 July 2010.

A proverbial litany of problems allegedly ensued subsequent to complainant taking delivery of the vehicle, amongst others, problems with the –

12.1 radiator and thermostat;

12.2 4x4 gear;

12.3 hazard indicator lights;

12.4 engine leaking oil;

12.5 universal joints;

12.6 front left wheel;

12.7 immobiliser; and

12.8 universal joints.

The problems were reported to it and that it had carried out repairs to the vehicle on various occasions namely –

18 December 2010;

22 December 2010;

On 14 March 2011 the vehicle went for further repairs to Dorning Motors CC, an independent authorised dealer in Tata vehicles situated in Kokstad. Completed 11 April 2011;

On 27 May 2011 the vehicle’s starter motor was replaced by Dorning Motors;

On 09 June 2011 the vehicles wheel bearings and brake pads were replaced and on 22 June 2011 the hubcaps were replaced by Dorning Motors; and

On 28 July 2011 Dorning Motors attended to further repair work on the vehicle. The Complainant was not charged for these repairs.

On 26 April 2011 the Complainant lodged a complaint with the Respondent to the effect that –

14.1 The vehicle was a 2006 and not a 2010 model as she was made to believe;

14.2 The vehicle was a Tata Xenon and not a Tata Telcoline; and

14.3 There were various problems with the vehicle ranging from oil leaks to it’s universal joints not working.

15. On 01 July 2011 the Applicant received a conciliation notice from the Respondent for a conciliation set down for 14 July 2011. Mr. Lubbe attended the conciliation on behalf of the Applicant and the Complainant participated telephonically. The Complainant verbally agreed to keep the vehicle if the Applicant could prove that it was in fact a 2010 model and if it furthermore agreed to repair the vehicle fully.

16. On 19 July 2011 the Applicant pointed out to the Respondent, in writing, that –

16.1 The copy of the E- Natis supplied shows that the vehicle is a 2010 model as first registration shows July 2010;

16.2 All job cards obtained confirmed that all concerns reported by the Complainant were addressed on each occasion;

16.3 The vehicle was recently at a workshop for repairs, a follow up call was made and the dealer confirmed that the vehicle was fully repaired.

17. The Applicant did not receive any response to such correspondence and resent it twice, on the 26th of July and 27th of October 2011.

THE COMPLIANCE NOTICE

18. The Respondent served a compliance notice on the Applicant on 01 March 2012.

19. The compliance notice sets out in

Paragraph 1.1: the details of the Complainant;

Paragraph 1.2: the averments by the Complainant;

Paragraph 1.3: the steps taken by the Respondent, essentially amounting to notification to the Applicant of the Complaint and a conciliation process that was embarked on;

Paragraph 1.4: the details of the contraventions in paragraph 1.4 headed ‘contraventions’ setting out that “…the

conduct by the Applicant amounts to a contravention of sections 29(a), section (1)(a),(b),(c); S42(1)(a),(b); section 55(2)(b);

Section 56(2)(a) and (b) of the CPA”.

20. A contradiction appears from the summary paragraph and the detailed quotations of the sections allegedly contravened. The summary

paragraph refers to Section 29(a); Section 1(a), (b), (c); Section 42(1)(a), (b); Section 55(2)(b); Section 56(2)(a) and (b) while

Paragraph 1.4, in the detailed quotations of the sections, refers to section 29, 40, 41, 55 and 56.

21. The expositions of the sections of the CPA is followed in paragraph 2 by the steps required to be taken by the Applicant as follows:

21.1 ”To replace the complainant’s motor vehicle with the new Tata Xenon 2010 model or refund the complainant a deposit (of the value of the motor vehicle she traded in) and all the money she paid through a monthly installment of R 4600.00 since plus an amount of R 1758.17 she paid to the respondent for repairs”

21.2 “The Respondent must ensure that the above directive is implemented within 15 working days from the date of issuance of the Compliance Notice, which is on or before the 16th of March 2012 failing which an administrative fine in the amount of R 300 000.00 (three hundred thousand rands) as laid out in paragraph 3 below, will be sought from the Tribunal in terms of section 112.

APPLICANT’S LEGAL SUBMISSIONS

The Applicant objects to the compliance notice on the basis that

the CPA does not apply to the transaction and submits that:

The transaction was concluded in July 2010 and the CPA came into effect on 01 April 2011 and does not have retrospective effect.3

The Applicant submits that Item 3(2) provides for those instances where the Act may have retrospective effect to some extent. It specifically stipulates that, in respect of Section 53 to 58 of the CPA, it shall:

“Apply only with respect to any goods or services supplied to the consumer in terms of the agreement, on or after the general effective date.”

The Respondent did not investigate the complaints before issuing the compliance notice.

The Respondent did not provide the required detail of Applicant’s the conduct that allegedly constitutes contraventions of the CPA.

The steps the Respondent instructed the Applicant to take go beyond Respondent’s powers as it is not steps that would ensure compliance with any of the sections allegedly contravened by the Applicant and these steps would have no bearing on any of the sections, except section 56. It is therefore not competent for the Respondent to require steps in terms of which the Applicant must replace the motor vehicle or refund the Complainant in respect thereof.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

It is uncontroverted that the Complainant bought and took delivery of the vehicle in July 2010, prior to the effective date of the CPA.

APPLICATION OF CPA TO TRANSACTION

The first question to consider is whether the CPA applies to this transaction entered into before the CPA came into operation.

Item 3 of Schedule 2 of the Act deals with the Transitional Provisions of the Act and provides that in the application of the CPA to pre-existing transactions and agreements, except to the extent expressly set out in this item, this Act does not apply to-

the marketing of any goods or services before the general effective date4;

any transaction concluded, or agreement entered into, before the general effective date; or

any goods supplied, or services provided, to a consumer before the general effective date.

Only specific sections5 of the CPA applies, and to a limited extent, to a pre-existing agreement between a supplier and a consumer, if the pre-existing

agreement –

(a) would have been subject to this Act if this Act had been in effect at the time the agreement was made; and

(b) contemplates that the parties to it will be bound for a fixed term until a date that is on or after the second anniversary of the general effective date.

The agreement was entered into and the vehicle delivered prior to the effective date and the CPA therefore does not apply to the transaction.

APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 55 AND 56 OF THE CPA TO CERTAIN COMPLAINTS

It is uncontrovetred that repairs (services) were effected to the vehicle on various occassions after the general effective date, namely –

On 27 May 2011 the vehicle’s starter motor was replaced by Dorning Motors;

On 09 June 2011 the vehicle’s wheel bearings and brake pads were replaced

On 22 June 2011 the hubcaps were replaced by Dorning Motors; and

On 28 July 2011 Dorning Motors attended to further repair work on the vehicle.

The Complainant was not charged for these repairs.

The question to answer is, if hypothetocally goods (the motor vehicle) supplied before the general effective date manifest poor quality after the general effective date, does the fact that it was supplied before the general effective date render the supplier immune to a challenge under the CPA? Should this be answered in the affirmative it would mean that for any goods supplied before the general effective date irrespective of its lifespan and however problematic and of poor quality they may be, consumers will never be able to assert the rights guaranteed to them in the CPA6.

The purposes of the CPA are to promote and advance the social and economic welfare of consumers in South Africa. The manner in which this is presumed to happen are set out in section 3(1) (a) to (h).

The Tribunal has to interpret and apply the provisions of the CPA within the ordinary meaning of the words and as mandated in Section 4(2)(b) and (c) of the CPA that charges the Tribunal with the responsibility to promote the spirit and purposes of the Act and to make appropriate orders to to give practical effect to to the consumers’ right of access to redress …”

An interpretation that goods (the motor vehicle) supplied before the general effective date but manifesting poor quality after the general effective date, by the fact that it was supplied before the general effective date, could render the supplier immune to a challenge under the CPA, in the view of the Tribunal, runs counter to the purpose and spirit of the CPA.

We find that the CPA, moreover section 55(2)(b) applies to the goods delivered to the complainant. We are however not making a finding on whether the Applicant contravened the relevant section as there is no evidence placed before the Tribunal to either substantiate or refute such a finding.

Section 56

Section 56(1) provides –

“In any transaction pertaining to the supply of goods to a consumer there is an implied provision that the producer or importer, the distributor and the retailer each warrant that the goods comply with the requirements and the standards contemplated in section 55, except to the extent that those have been altered contrary to the instructions, or after leaving the control of the producer or importer, a distributor or the retailer, as the case may be.”

Section 56(2) (a) and (b) provide that -

“Within 6 months after delivery of any goods to a consumer, the consumer may return the goods to the supplier, without penalty and at the supplier’s risk and expense, if the goods fail to satisfy the requirements and standards contemplated in section 55, and the supplier must, at the discretion of the consumer, either –

repair or replace the failed, unsafe or defective goods; or

refund to the consumer the price paid by the consumer for the goods.”

The vehicle was constantly under repairs. Clearly the intention of the legislature must have been that a person, when purchasing for goods and services, should be able to have the use and enjoyment of those goods and services for a relatively uninterrupted periods of time.

The purposes of the CPA are to promote and advance the social and economic welfare of consumers in South Africa. The manner in which this is presumed to happen are set out in section 3(1) (a) to (h).

The Tribunal has to interpret and apply the provisions of the CPA within the ordinary meaning of the words and as mandated in Section 4(2)(b) and (c) of the CPA that charges the Tribunal with the responsibility to promote the spirit and purposes of the Act and to make appropriate orders to to give practical effect to to the consumers’ right of access to redress …”

An interpretation that goods (the motor vehicle) supplied before the general effective date but manifesting poor quality after the general effective date, by the fact that it was supplied before the general effective date, could render the supplier immune to a challenge under the CPA, in the view of the Tribunal, runs counter to the purpose and spirit of the CPA.

For this reason and the rationale above in respect of section 55 relative to the purpose and interpretation of the CPA, we find that the CPA and specifically section 56 find application in this matter. We are not making a finding whether Applicant contravened the relevant section.

INVESTIGATION

The Applicant submitted that -

If regard is had to the content of the compliance notice, it is evident that it does not contain the results of an investigation by an inspector on behalf of the Respondent. The Applicant submits that this is apparent from the fact that paragraphs 1.2.1 to 1.2.12 merely sets out the allegations made by the Complainant, without substantiation which presumably would have resulted from an investigation.

There is no indication of the veracity of these complaints having been investigated by the Respondent. The Applicant submits that it can confirm that the Respondent did not do so, as it had not engaged with the Applicant beyond what has been set out in the chronology of events as set out in its founding papers.

Section 73(1) of the CPA provides as follows:

“73 Outcome of investigation

After concluding an investigation into a complaint, the Commission may…”

It is evident from the provisions contained in this section that the “investigation” by the Respondent is a jurisdictional

fact which is a pre-condition for the exercise of the Respondent’s powers to issue a Compliance Notice or take any other action provided for in the remainder of that section.

In the matter of City of Johannesburg v NCC7 the Tribunal considered this issue and held as follows:

“137. The Tribunal is of the view that the Respondent should have conducted an investigation into each complaint before issuing a compliance notice for the following reasons:

a. Section 72 sets out a number of different options which the Respondent may elect to follow when a complaint is received. This

applies regardless of whether a consumer or the Respondent initiates the complaint and it is unclear why the Respondent is of the view that there is a distinction between the situation where a consumer lays a complaint and the Respondent itself decides to initiate an investigation. It seems that the Respondent’s interpretation of the Act is incorrect on this point.

b. Although section 72 uses the word “may”, it concludes with the words ‘in any other case’ which is a clear indication that the Respondent chooses from one of these four options when it receives or initiates a complaint. It must be noted that this approach is supported by the Respondent itself in the compliance guidelines which it has published.

c. Section 73 states as one of the outcomes of an investigation, that the Respondent may issue a compliance notice in terms of section 100. This compliance notice is issued after an investigation is concluded.

138. Section 100 states that the Commission may issue a compliance notice to a person whom the Commission on reasonable grounds believes has been engaged in prohibited conduct.

139. If all these sections are read together, it seems to the Tribunal that the legislature intended that a compliance notice should be issued after an investigation was completed because only after having conducted an investigation, can an investigator have reasonable

grounds for believing that prohibited conduct is involved. If an investigation is not conducted, then the compliance notice will be based on unsubstantiated allegations and assumptions. The Respondent will also not be able to supply details relating to the nature and extent of the non-compliance.”

43. The same aspect was addressed in the judgment in the matter of Murray, Cloete N.O., Klein, Norman N.O & Edwards, Elizabeth Margaret NO v NCC and 3 Others8 and Auction Alliance (Pty) Ltd v NCC & 2 Others and the considerations need not be repeated herein. It has become trite that a Compliance Notice may only be lawfully issued once an investigation has been concluded.

CONTENTS OF THE COMPLIANCE NOTICE

When the Respondent elects to deal with a complaint in accordance with Part B of Chapter 3 of the Act (as provided for by section 99(b)), it may issue a compliance notice which must set out the following information required by Section 100(3) of the CPA:

The person or association to which the conduct applies;

The provisions of the Act that has not been complied with;

Details of the nature and extend of non-compliance;

Any steps that are required to be taken and the period within which those steps must be taken; and

Any penalty that may be imposed in terms of this Act if those steps are not taken.

From the descripton of the contents of the compliance notice above it and contrasting that to the requirements of section 100(3), it is clear that it does not set out the basis / bases upon which it is alleged that Applicant breached the specified sections of the CPA but contains a mere bald allegation of contraventions of the CPA.

The Respondent alleges in the compliance notice that the Complainant realised on 13 December 2010 that the vehicle is not a 2010 model, but is in fact a 2006 model. In support of this assertion Respondent referred to a mechanic’s report provided or referred to by Complainant to it. A copy of such report does not form part of the record before the Tribunal.

This singular assertion does not go to the essence of the requirement to show Applicant where, in what and to what extent exactly it breached the sections alleged. This is contrary to the requirement of section 100(3)(c) which requires that “…details of the nature and extent of the non-compliance be set out..”

It was established in the matter of City of Johannesburg v NCC9 that the issuance of a Compliance Notice by the Respondent constitutes administrative action.

Section 3 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (“PAJA”)10 sets out the requirements for procedurally fair administrative action and provides that an administrator must give a person whose

rights are affected by such action:

adequate notice of the nature and purpose of the proposed administrative action ;

a reasonable opportunity to make representations ;

a clear statement of the administrative action

adequate notice of any right of review or internal appeal, where applicable; and

adequate notice of the right to request reasons in terms of section 5.11

It is specifically the requirement of “adequate notice of the nature and purpose of the proposed administrative action” and “a reasonable opportunity to make representations” that is relevant to the present matter. In order for the issuance of the Compliance Notice to be lawful, the Respondent would have had to adhere to these requirements.

On 05 May 2011 the Respondent informed the Applicant about the complaint that was made against it. Thereafter, on 01 July 2011, the Applicant received a conciliation notice from the Respondent. The Applicant attended the conciliation meeting on 14 July 2011 and responded in writing to the allegations against it on 19 July 2011. In its aforementioned response, the Applicant set out an explanation of its version of the events and included a settlement offer. The Applicant resent its letter dated 19 July 2011 to the Respondent on two later dates. The Respondent never responded to this correspondence and proceeded to issue the Compliance Notice on 01 March 2012.

The Applicant submits in paragraph 37 of the Founding Affidavit that it was never provided with details as to what the particular complaints against it are and that it was therefore impossible for the Applicant to deal with it in detail.

The Applicant further submits, in paragraph 38 of the Founding Affidavit, that the Respondent issued the Compliance Notice “on the mere say so of Ms Ntapu”.

It is evident from these submissions that the procedure followed by the Respondent does not comply with the requirements for procedurally fair administrative action as set out in Section 3 of PAJA. The administrative action taken by the Respondent is therefore unlawful.

STEPS ORDERED TO BE TAKEN

The Applicant objects to the steps the Respondent requires of it to take on the basis that the steps –

are required on the request of the consumer

are not steps that would ensure compliance with any of the sections of the CPA allegedly contravened by the Applicant.

have no bearing on any of the relevant sections of the CPA, except Section 56.

not competent for the Respondent to require of the Applicant to replace the motor vehicle or refund the Complainant in respect thereof as, apart from the fact that the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant before the effective date of the CPA, the Complainant never sought to return the vehicle within 6 months from the date of delivery.

When considering the content of a compliance notice and specifically the steps the Respondent requires of the Applicant to take, and whether the Respondent is entitled to prescribe such steps we considered the functions and powers of the Respondent, and the effect of non-compliance with a compliance notice.

The Respondent is responsible to carry out functions and excercise the powers assigned to it by or in terms of this Act or any other national legislation.12

The enforcement functions of the Commission are set out in section 99 of the CPA.

The consequences of non-compliance with the steps set out in the compliance notice are set out in section 100(3)(e) i.e. “…any

penalty that may be imposed in terms of the CPA if the steps are not taken.” That penalty is either an administrative fine imposed by the Tribunal or a prosecution in terms of section 110(2) by the National Prosecuting Authority13.

Non-compliance with a compliance notice enables the Respondent to approach the Tribunal for the imposition of an administrative penalty. This administrative penalty is payable to the national purse, not to the consumer.

The issuance of an administrative penalty is an enforcement mechanism to compel providers of goods and services to comply with the law not a route through which consumers can obtain direct redress. Through issuing a compliance notice the Respondent in fact closes this door to consumers affected by the conduct of the Respondent

It is accordingly an untenable interpretation of the CPA to read into the powers and functions of the Respondent the power to impose a step in a compliance notice which in effect amounts to the imposition of an administrative penalty, orders for damages, refunds or return of goods.

It would therefore be beyond the powers of the Respondent to include a step in a compliance notice that in fact amounts to the award of damages to a Complainant.

For all the reasons set out above the Tribunal concludes that:

The CPA does not apply to the transaction entered into between Applicant and the Complainant;

Section 55 and 56 apply in respect of the defects in the goods and the services provided to the Complainant after the effective date of the CPA;

The Respondent did not investigate the Complainant’s complaints as enjoined in section 73 of the CPA

The compliance notice is defective in that -

it does not comply with the requirements of section 100 (3)(c) in that it does not set out the nature and extent of non compliance with the CPA; and

it contravenes section 100(3)(d) of the CPA in that it contains steps exceeding the Respondent’s powers.

In the result the Tribunal makes the following order

The compliance is hereby cancelled; and

No order is made as to costs.

DATED AT CENTURION THIS 27th DAY OF MARCH 2013.

[signed]

___________________________

DIANE TERBLANCHE

Presiding member

Ms P Beck and Mr X May concurring

1 Regulations for matters relating to the functions of the Tribunal and Rules for the conduct of matters before the Tribunal, 2007 published under GN 789 in GG 30225 of 28 August 2007 as amended by GenN 428 in GG 34405 of 29 June 2011

2 Schedule 2 of the CPA provides that the Date of Commencement of the Schedule is 24 April 2010. It defines the staggered effective dates of the CPA as follows:“‘early effective date’ means the date on which the provisions mentioned in item 2(1) took effect” Item 2(1) provides that the Schedule takes effect one year after the date upon which the CPA was signed by the President, therefore 24 April 2010. “’general effective date’ means the date on which the provisions mentioned in Item 2(2) took effect”. This is turn refers to a date 18 months after the date upon which the CPA was signed by the President. The General effective date was however deferred until 31 March 2011 by GenN 917 in GG 33581 of 23 September 2010

2 Schedule 2 of the CPA provides that the Date of Commencement of the Schedule is 24 April 2010. It defines the staggered effective dates of the CPA as follows:“‘early effective date’ means the date on which the provisions mentioned in item 2(1) took effect” Item 2(1) provides that the Schedule takes effect one year after the date upon which the CPA was signed by the President, therefore 24 April 2010.

“’general effective date’ means the date on which the provisions mentioned in Item 2(2) took effect”. This is turn refers to a date 18 months after the date upon which the CPA was signed by the President. The General effective date was however deferred until 31 March 2011 by GenN 917 in GG 33581 of 23 September 2010

3 Schedule 2 of the CPA which provides as follows: “(1) Except to the extent expressly set out in this item, the Act does not apply – To the marketing of any goods or services before the general effective date ; To any transaction concluded, or agreement entered into, before the general effective date ; or To any goods supplied or services provided to a consumer before the general effective date.”

3 Schedule 2 of the CPA which provides as follows:

“(1) Except to the extent expressly set out in this item, the Act does not apply –

To the marketing of any goods or services before the general effective date ; To any transaction concluded, or agreement entered into, before the general effective date ; or To any goods supplied or services provided to a consumer before the general effective date.”

4Schedule 2 of the CPA provides that the Date of Commencement of the Schedule is 24 April 2010. It defines the staggered effective dates of the CPA as follows:“‘early effective date’ means the date on which the provisions mentioned in item 2(1) took effect” Item 2(1) provides that the Schedule takes effect one year after the date upon which the CPA was signed by the President, therefore 24 April 2010. “’general effective date’ means the date on which the provisions mentioned in Item 2(2) took effect”. This is turn refers to a date 18 months after the date upon which the CPA was signed by the President. The General effective date was however deferred until 31 March 2011 by GenN 917 in GG 33581 of 23 September 2010 The vehicle was sold to the Complainant on 08 July 2010 and the Complainant took delivery thereof on 17 July 2010. Both dates falls prior to the general effective date of the CPA as set out above.

4Schedule 2 of the CPA provides that the Date of Commencement of the Schedule is 24 April 2010. It defines the staggered effective dates of the CPA as follows:“‘early effective date’ means the date on which the provisions mentioned in item 2(1) took effect” Item 2(1) provides that the Schedule takes effect one year after the date upon which the CPA was signed by the President, therefore 24 April 2010.

The vehicle was sold to the Complainant on 08 July 2010 and the Complainant took delivery thereof on 17 July 2010. Both dates falls prior to the general effective date of the CPA as set out above.

5 s14 - subsections (1)(b) to (d) and (2) apply with respect to the expiry and possible renewal of the agreement, or after the general

effective date; ss18 to 21 - Apply only with respect to goods that are deliverable or delivered to the consumer in terms of the

agreement, or after the general effective date; s22 - applies only to a notice, document or visual representation that is required to be produced, provided or displayed to the consumer, on or after the general effective date; s25 - applies only with respect to any goods supplied to the consumer in terms of the agreement, on or after the general effective date; s26- applies only with respect to any transactions occurring in terms of the agreement, on or after the general effective date; s31 - applies only to a purported amendment to the agreement made, on or after the general effective date; s44 - applies only with respect to any goods supplied to the consumer in terms of the agreement, on or after the general effective date; ss53 to 58- apply only with respect to any goods or services supplied to the consumer in terms of the agreement, on or after the general effective date.; ss64(1) and (2)apply only to an amount paid or payable by the consumer in terms of the agreement, on or after the general effective date; ss64(3) and (4)- apply only with respect to any closure of a facility contemplated in those provisions, it will occur on or after the effective date; and s65 - applies only with respect to an amount paid or payable to the consumer, or to property

that comes into the possession of the supplier, on or after the general effective date.

6 Section 55 of the CPA

7 NCT/2667/2011/101(1) (P) & NCT/2081/2011/101(1) (P) at para 137 - 139

8 NCT/4454/2012/101(1)(P)CPA and NCT/4570/2012/101(1)(P)CPA

9 NCT/2667/2011/101(1) (P) & NCT/2081/2011/101(1) (P)

10 Act 3 of 2000

11 Section 3(2)(b)(i) – (v) of PAJA

12 Section 92(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, Act 68 of 2008

13 Section 100(6) - Consumer Protection Act, Act 68 of 2008