Ford SA’s apologies to its customers on Monday rings hollow and does not go nearly far enough.
As the company announced a “voluntary” recall of some 4500 Kuga SUVs — nearly 50 of which have caught alight — it was under the axe of an ordered recall from the National Consumer Commission which‚ we are pleased to see‚ is finally baring the teeth it has to fight for the person in the street.
Ford was compelled to come up with a recall plan after the commission threatened it at the end of last week‚ saying enough was enough.
But Ford’s solution to a two-stage fix to this lemon model neatly dodges a major missile which it should be facing. A safety recall — which is what this is — involves a manufacturer undertaking total responsibility and cost of fixing a problem. But it can — and‚ in our view‚ should — also involve replacing the vehicle or offering to buy it back.
It’s on these second two scenarios that Ford skipped on Monday like a cat on a hot Kuga bonnet. It neatly side-stepped how it would deal with owners whose cars had already burned out‚ handing that problem neatly off to insurers. It didn’t acknowledge at all the possibility of a buy-back.
Significantly‚ Ford also ducked a clear undertaking that the fixes it was implementing would solve the burning car problem and it would not give any undertaking on an extended warranty for owners‚ surely the most basic form of recompense.
Consumer commissioner Ebrahim Mohamed was clear: “No brand is bigger than the law.” Indeed. And the law in South Africa is unambiguous.
“The Consumer Protection Act (CPA) is clear‚ in terms of Section 61‚ that there is strict liability for any damage or harm caused by a product which is unsafe when supplied or which has an inherent hazard or a defect‚” says CPA and product liability specialist attorney Janusz Luterek.
Liability extends beyond replacing the vehicle and includes liability for any other harm caused.
If Ford SA thinks this is the end of the road it is soon to discover it is only the beginning as a class action suit gathers steam and the eyes of the consumer commission bear down on them.
Ford CEO Jeffrey Nemeth confirmed at the briefing our exposé of Monday that Ford had knowledge of the problem from insurers and other sources for some time‚ and had been “evaluating” the information. This‚ along with the standard Ford script about the “data” that informs its decisions‚ rings only of obfuscation and an excuse for its delayed action.
The suggestion that the problem could be related to the South African heat is simply laughable. Effectively Ford is saying that its cars break in the sun.
Can it get any worse for a manufacturer? – TMG Digital
OPINION: Ford skips like a cat on a hot Kuga bonnet
Ford SA’s apologies to its customers on Monday rings hollow and does not go nearly far enough.
As the company announced a “voluntary” recall of some 4500 Kuga SUVs — nearly 50 of which have caught alight — it was under the axe of an ordered recall from the National Consumer Commission which‚ we are pleased to see‚ is finally baring the teeth it has to fight for the person in the street.
Ford was compelled to come up with a recall plan after the commission threatened it at the end of last week‚ saying enough was enough.
But Ford’s solution to a two-stage fix to this lemon model neatly dodges a major missile which it should be facing. A safety recall — which is what this is — involves a manufacturer undertaking total responsibility and cost of fixing a problem. But it can — and‚ in our view‚ should — also involve replacing the vehicle or offering to buy it back.
It’s on these second two scenarios that Ford skipped on Monday like a cat on a hot Kuga bonnet. It neatly side-stepped how it would deal with owners whose cars had already burned out‚ handing that problem neatly off to insurers. It didn’t acknowledge at all the possibility of a buy-back.
Significantly‚ Ford also ducked a clear undertaking that the fixes it was implementing would solve the burning car problem and it would not give any undertaking on an extended warranty for owners‚ surely the most basic form of recompense.
Consumer commissioner Ebrahim Mohamed was clear: “No brand is bigger than the law.” Indeed. And the law in South Africa is unambiguous.
“The Consumer Protection Act (CPA) is clear‚ in terms of Section 61‚ that there is strict liability for any damage or harm caused by a product which is unsafe when supplied or which has an inherent hazard or a defect‚” says CPA and product liability specialist attorney Janusz Luterek.
Liability extends beyond replacing the vehicle and includes liability for any other harm caused.
If Ford SA thinks this is the end of the road it is soon to discover it is only the beginning as a class action suit gathers steam and the eyes of the consumer commission bear down on them.
Ford CEO Jeffrey Nemeth confirmed at the briefing our exposé of Monday that Ford had knowledge of the problem from insurers and other sources for some time‚ and had been “evaluating” the information. This‚ along with the standard Ford script about the “data” that informs its decisions‚ rings only of obfuscation and an excuse for its delayed action.
The suggestion that the problem could be related to the South African heat is simply laughable. Effectively Ford is saying that its cars break in the sun.
Can it get any worse for a manufacturer? – TMG Digital
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos