‘We Have to Run a Gauntlet Every Time It Rains’: Dealership Ordered to Pay R58,800 After Selling Wrong Jaguar

A Gauteng-based dealership has been ordered to pay R58,800 to a disgruntled customer following a dispute over the misrepresentation of a luxury SUV, in a ruling by the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) .

The Dispute

Marco Victor Bonafede purchased a 2020 Jaguar F-Pace 2.0L Pure from Jaguar Land Rover Bedfordview in September 2023 for R849,000.

He claimed the vehicle was advertised and sold to him as an all-wheel drive (AWD) model, when in fact it was a rear-wheel drive (RWD) varianta lower specification typically valued less on the market.

The discrepancy only came to light two years later , in September 2025, after he had already driven the vehicle for more than 30,000 kilometres.

The Impact

Bonafede argued that the misrepresentation invalidated the sale agreement and demanded:

• Cancellation of the instalment sale agreement

• A full refund of all payments made

• No deductions for usage or depreciation

“I sold my Jaguar E-Pace P300 AWD and I insisted on another AWD model for the safety of me and my family. Now we have to run a gauntlet every time it rains. How much do you put on the lives of me and my family, that has not even been considered,” he said.

The Dealership’s Response

The dealership admitted the error but maintained it was unintentional. It said the error stemmed from incorrect data across multiple systems, including third-party platforms and historical records.

All documentation at the time of saleincluding listings, finance applications, and registration recordsconsistently described the vehicle as AWD.

The dealer noted that no premium was charged for AWD specification. The average market difference between AWD and RWD models at the time was approximately R58,800 far less than the R150,000 claimed by Bonafede.

Bonafede raised the issue only after two years of usewell beyond the six-month remedy period under the Consumer Protection Act.

Despite denying legal liability, the dealership offered an ex-gratia settlement of R58,800 , along with alternative remedies. These offers were rejected.

The Ombudsman’s Finding

MIOSA confirmed that the vehicle had indeed been incorrectly advertised as AWD. However, it concluded that a full refund and contract cancellation were not justified under the circumstances.

The ombudsman highlighted:

• The vehicle had been used extensively without complaint for over two years

• No evidence of deliberate misrepresentation or fraud was found

• The dealership acted in good faith based on available records

MIOSA found the dealer’s R58,800 settlement offer to be “fair and reasonable.”

The Outcome

The ombudsman recommended that Bonafede reconsider the offer and submit any additional supporting documentation if he wishes to proceed.

Should he accept, the dealership is expected to process payment within 15 business days.

The Bottom Line

Two years. 30,000 km. An honest mistake. A family’s safety concerns.

The dealership offered R58,800. MIOSA said that’s fair.

Bonafede wanted more. But after two years of driving, the ombudsman said no.