A Gauteng man has accused a Nissan dealership of selling him a vehicle represented as brand new despite what he claims were numerous defects and signs that it had allegedly undergone prior repair work.
Kersan Pillay, from Midrand, purchased a 2026 Nissan Navara PRO-4X Warrior from AutoCity Nissan Heidelberg on March 24, 2026, for over R751,000.
The vehicle was financed through MFC with monthly instalments of approximately R9,500.
According to Pillay, the vehicle had at least 10 kilometres on the odometer when handed over and was presented as brand new. However, he alleges that when driving home, he noticed that the wheel alignment was faulty.
Shortly afterwards, he began noticing defects inconsistent with expectations for a new vehicle.
He claims he immediately informed the dealership of surface scratches, wheel alignment concerns, rust on suspension components, and adhesive residue after arriving home. He was initially told the issues could be addressed through polishing and a wheel alignment.
As additional concerns emerged, Pillay formally lodged a written complaint with both AutoCity Nissan Heidelberg and Nissan South Africa on March 30, 2026.
Image: Supplied
Seeking independent verification, he commissioned several inspections at his own expense. The first assessment, conducted by Mint Detailing on 1st of April, reportedly concluded that the vehicle displayed significant paint defects requiring comprehensive paint correction across the body and was unsuitable for the ceramic coating service he had originally requested.
Pillay said the dealership dismissed that report, prompting him to obtain a second assessment from Nissan-approved panel beaters on April 8, 2026. He alleges that this report was also rejected.
Two days later, he arranged for a third inspection at Bidvest McCarthy Nissan Woodmead.
According to Pillay, the findings from the three inspections consistently identified concerns, including alleged evidence of non-factory repainting or refinishing, paint defects, scratches, adhesive residue, non-standard fasteners, and other issues he believes are inconsistent with a factory-new vehicle.
After submitting the reports to Nissan South Africa, Pillay requested that the vehicle either be replaced with a new one or that the sale be cancelled and his deposit refunded. He said both requests were declined.
Image: Supplied
In correspondence dated April 17, 2026, AutoCity Nissan Heidelberg’s dealer principal rejected his request for a replacement vehicle or cancellation of the sale.
Pillay disputes several aspects of the dealership’s response. Among his concerns is the vehicle handover process. He alleges that he and his family were asked to sign all delivery documentation before being allowed to inspect the vehicle. He also claims that no formal inspection or test drive was conducted before delivery.
He further alleges that some copies of the delivery documentation later provided to him do not appear to contain his signature or handwriting, although he says he has not yet pursued those concerns through legal channels.
Pillay also questioned the dealership’s pre-delivery inspection process. According to him, a Nissan South Africa representative indicated during discussions that there had initially been difficulty locating a record of the vehicle’s pre-delivery inspection before the documentation was subsequently produced.
He maintained that the existence of multiple independent inspection reports should have prompted Nissan South Africa to conduct its own technical investigation through a field technician.
Image: Supplied
“The facts presented before them were ignored,” Pillay said. “They ignored what was factually submitted as per their request, ignored my reasonable request for a replacement or cancellation of the agreement and a full refund of my deposit.”
Instead, he said the dealership offered, as a goodwill gesture and without admitting liability, to inspect the vehicle and arrange professional polishing or detailing to address what it described as cosmetic concerns.
Pillay rejected that proposal, arguing that the reported defects could not simply be corrected through polishing.
“I believe these are factory paint defects and possible back-door cover-ups,” he said.
“My concern extends beyond my individual case and raises broader questions regarding consumer rights, disclosure obligations, quality control processes, and what consumers can reasonably expect when purchasing a vehicle represented as brand new.”
He added that his use of the vehicle has been limited, largely restricted to short school drop-off trips.
“I can’t use the vehicle to its full potential because I’m afraid of what might happen. The last time I used it I picked up a rattle from the back door window. This makes me uncomfortable and I wonder what they really covered up,” he said.
Despite the ongoing dispute, Pillay said he has remained contractually liable for the vehicle finance. He claims MFC advised him that the disagreement was between himself, the manufacturer, and the dealership, and that his obligation to continue making the monthly repayments remained unchanged.
Image: Supplied
Responding to Pillay’s allegations, Nissan South Africa said its dealerships are independent entities authorised to sell, service and support Nissan vehicles on the company’s behalf.
“We, Nissan South Africa, remain the custodian of the vehicle warranty and the quality of our vehicles, as we have done for the last sixty years,” the company said.
Nissan said it remains committed to resolving Pillay’s concerns and ensuring that he remains “a happy, lifetime customer of Nissan.”
However, the manufacturer said that because the dispute is now officially before the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA), it is obliged to await the outcome of the ombudsman’s process before taking further action.
“As his concerns are now an official matter serving before the Motor Industry Ombudsman, Nissan is obliged to await their feedback, and it will then provide all the support required to help resolve Mr Pillay’s concerns,” said the motor company.
The dispute was subsequently referred to the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa, and no final determination has been issued.
