First and foremost, the consumer when purchasing a vehicle, is now armed with the choice of whether they want to include the service plan. Put another way, service plans can no longer be embedded into the metal. This means that other independent providers can also price service plans, or consumers can choose to not purchase a service plan and pay for their services as and when needed, making for a more competitive market.

Secondly, the Competition Commission has given guidance around the appointment of motor-body repairers by insurance companies and manufacturers, with the objective of “lowering barriers to entry and ensuring that a greater number of firms, especially firms owned and operated by historically disadvantaged individuals and small to medium enterprises have the opportunity to undertake service, maintenance and repair work of motor vehicles within the period covered by a motor vehicle’s warranty.” For insurance companies, this revolves around a fair appointment process and a fair allocation of work. Similar principles will be applied to the appointment of dealerships which criteria must be reasonable.

If the consumer is insured, the vehicle must be referred by the consumer’s insurer to a manufacturer approved repairer to ensure that the integrity of the consumer’s warranty is protected while the accident-related repairs are being attended to.

If the consumer is not insured, it is up to the consumer which service provider he/she choses to repair the vehicle, however, we strongly recommend that consumers refer their vehicles to a reputable ISP, who holds adequate commercial insurance to ensure that they are covered should they need to make a warranty claim at a later stage.

Similar to the EU and US, all technical information required to assess, service and repair vehicles must be made available by the manufacturers to the ISPs on reasonable terms and conditions.

No. Warranty repairs must always be referred to the manufacturer’s approved dealer.

As mentioned above the consumer is protected under the provisions of the CPA. If there is a warranty dispute, the consumer should refer the claim to his/her service provider and the service provider, which claim should be covered by the service provider’s insurance.  The guidelines in fact, specify that ISPs must disclose to consumers whether they have adequate commercial insurance cover. We strongly recommend that consumers use only those ISPs who can provide proof of adequate commercial insurance.

No. The guidelines maintain that those provisions of the warranty that relate to unaffected parts remain severable and enforceable. In other words, only the section/s of the warranty that relate to the failure/damage may be voided, the remainder of the warranty must be honoured by the manufacturer.

If a manufacturer finds that a warranty related failure is due to inferior quality parts, incorrect service procedures or faulty workmanship they are within their rights to decline the warranty. As stipulated in the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (“the CPA”), the liability in such an instance will lie with the ISP and/or the parts supplier/importer. If a manufacturer declines a warranty without providing evidence that the warranty related failure is due to inferior quality parts, incorrect service procedures or faulty workmanship then a consumer is entitled to dispute the declining of the warranty and approach the Motor Industry Ombudsman or the Competition Commission.

It is important to note here that while manufacturers are entitled to void a section of a warranty where a customer brings in a vehicle with a fault and it is clear that the fault has been caused by low quality parts or poor workmanship on the part of an ISP, they are not entitled to void your warranty for the simple act of choosing to use and ISP instead of the dealer workshop. The same goes for the fitment of accessories. For example the manufacturer is not entitled to void your warranty if you elect to fit a matching quality non-original tow bar or bulbar. There has to be a causal link between the action of the customer and/or his chosen service provider and the fault.  So if your engine blows up after fitting a non-original tow bar,  the manufacture is not entitled to void the warranty on your engine on the basis of fitting the tow bar.

ISPs are required to record the service history in the service book or in the electronic service record of the vehicle to allow traceability should there be a warranty issue at a later stage. A caveat to this is that the ISP must also be given access to previous service history.

ISPs are also required by the Guidelines to disclose to consumers, in clear and explicit terms, the risk of damage that could arise from the ISP’s work, including consequential damage to the consumer’s vehicle, which may potentially void certain obligations of the manufacture in terms of the warranty.

To avoid the risk of a manufacture refusing to honour a warranty, we recommend that all services be carried out in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications:

1. Fluids used should conform to manufacturer’s specifications.
2. Parts manufacturers and suppliers (especially for filters) should confirm that their parts perform at the same or a higher standard than the original parts.
3. It is recommended that ISPs purchase parts from manufacturers that manufacture on behalf of the OEM as well as the independent aftermarket. Good examples of these types of brands include Mahle, Bosch, NGK, GUD, Hella, Temot, Fram, Safeline, Monroe, Mann and Hummel, amongst others.
4. ISPs should only use parts from suppliers that provide indemnity for damages (including consequential damages) should their parts be found to be at fault.

No, but if a manufacturer finds that a warranty related failure is due to inferior quality parts, they are within their rights to decline the warranty. It is therefore important that ISPs procure parts from reputable suppliers and use only recognised, quality parts when servicing a vehicle.