Motshidisi Matambuye did what responsible car owners do. She took her Kia Rio to an authorised dealershipKia Weltevreden Park in Roodepoortfor a routine service in July 2024. The car was collected, paid for, and driven home. Within 48 hours, it was overheating.
What followed has been a 19-month nightmare of misdiagnoses, disputed bills, and a final ruling from the Motor Industry Ombudsman that left her holding a R65,000 bill for an engine replacement.
The Timeline of Trouble
-
July 2024: Matambuye’s Kia Rio is serviced at Kia Weltevreden Park. Two days later, it overheats.
-
Initial diagnosis: A faulty temperature switch is identified and replaced. Matambuye pays R1,700 and collects the car.
-
Same day: The car overheats again. It returns to the dealership.
-
New diagnosis: Internal engine damage, including a failed head gasket. A full engine replacement is quoted at R160,000.
-
Goodwill offer: Kia’s warranty department offers to cover 50% of parts costs, leaving Matambuye responsible for approximately R65,000, including full labour.
-
Ombudsman complaint: Matambuye approaches the Motor Industry Ombudsman (MIOSA). The complaint is dismissed.
-
February 2026: MIOSA directs Matambuye to either authorise repairs or remove the vehicle within 15 days to avoid storage fees.
The Dispute
Matambuye’s position is straightforward: “The car was fine when I drove it to the dealership, and suddenly there was overheating after they serviced it. The issue only started after it came back from them. I don’t understand why I have to pay 50% for damage that I didn’t cause.”
She acknowledges that the vehicle had missed two scheduled services prior to the July 2024 appointment. But she argues that the car was rarely used”mostly parked because I use my work vehicle”making sudden engine failure difficult to explain.
“I gave them the go-ahead to replace the temperature switch, and I fetched the car when they were done. The same day, the car started overheating again and I took it back, and that’s when they came with a new diagnosis and the exuberant R160,000 charge.”
Kia’s Response
Kia Weltevreden Park paints a different picture. According to the company:
-
The vehicle was brought in with existing cooling system leaks. The cooling system was already compromised.
-
These items were repaired, and a service was performed. The vehicle was only collected several months later, in December 2024.
-
In January 2025, Matambuye raised concerns about overheating. Repeated inspections and test drives did not confirm an active condition.
-
In February 2025, she returned with an engine warning light. A temperature sensor was replaced to rule out faulty readings.
-
In May 2025, the vehicle returned again. Extensive investigations then identified internal engine damage.
“Based on Kia’s technical assessment, there is no evidence linking the routine service work carried out in July 2024 to the engine failure that later occurred,” the company said.
Kia also noted that at the time of service, the vehicle was out of warranty, had missed two major scheduled services, and showed signs of prior accident damage to the front. “These factors collectively increase the risk of mechanical failure over time.”
The company maintained that its offer of price assistance on parts was a goodwill gesture, not a legal obligation.
The Ombudsman’s Ruling
Matambuye took her case to MIOSA, hoping for a different outcome. Instead, the ombudsman found that documentation showed the radiator reservoir bottle was cracked prior to repairsa condition that could have contributed to overheating.
“Having considered the submissions received, this office is unable to support the expectations of the complainant as presented,” MIOSA concluded.
No concrete evidence was submitted to prove that the dealership’s repair work caused the engine damage.
The Human Cost
For Matambuye, the ruling is not just a legal defeat. It’s a financial blow. She now faces a choice: pay R65,000 for repairs on a car she believes was damaged by the very people she trusted to maintain it, or remove the vehicle and walk away from the money already spent.
“The car was mostly parked because I use my work vehicle. So how could the engine get damaged if the car hadn’t been driven for a year?” she asked.
It’s a question the ombudsman did not answer.
Lessons for Consumers
The case offers a harsh reminder of the importance of documentation, timing, and the limits of goodwill:
-
Missed services matter: Even if a car is rarely used, missed scheduled services can be used to deny warranty claims.
-
Existing damage is documented: Dealerships note pre-existing conditions. Consumers should request and review these notes before authorising work.
-
The ombudsman is not a court: MIOSA’s findings are based on submissions and evidence. If documentation tells a different story, the consumer’s account may not prevail.
Matambuye’s Kia Rio remains at the dealership. The clock is ticking on storage fees. And the question of who bears responsibility for an engine that failed two days after a service remains unansweredat least, to her satisfaction.
