By now, you’re probably heard of the case where a certain Puteri Sayang Binti Abdul Ghafar who owns (or owned?) a Peugeot 3008 bearing the registration number WVC 7176, where apparently –

– she’s unhappy with certain aspects of the service rendered to her, which –

– prompted her to post certain stickers on her 3008 that implies poor customer service on the part of Nasim/Peugeot, that ultimately ended with –

– her paying for a public apology on a public newspaper for her actions.

 

Now, without knowing details, some would assume it’s the big boys (ie companies) “bullying” the poor woman into publicizing the apology. The apology could have been done under duress and the company probably threatened all forms of unsavory action should she not comply.

 

 

The messages on the car are – discouraging, to say the least for prospective buyers and defamatory to the marque so expecting a lawsuit shouldn’t be very surprising. As amusing as this sounds, the 3008 isn’t the first vehicle that gained notoriety for its stickers – this one is:-

 

The infamous 2010 My Honda Tak Guna where owner Jess Ross parked his car in front of Honda Malaysia HQ in Petaling Jaya as a sign of protest for problems relating to – well, you can  read it on his car. In the end, he was served a legal notice that ultimately resulted in a retraction like Puteri, sounding like this:-

“hi! Guys, I would like to officially make a statement that my car issues have been resolved to my satisfaction by Honda Malaysia and in lieu of that, i hereby retract my statements made. i have removed the pictures posted on my fb page as the matter is resolved and i urge all you guys out there to do the same as you might face legal claims. thank you”

 

We get it; you were pissed for how you’re treated as an owner. You want action. You want results.

 

But the question is; Can YOU, the legal OWNER of a vehicle, post messages on YOUR car about how bad YOUR car is?

 

 

The answer might surprise you.

 

In countries such as America and the UK, they have laws that emphasize on ethical and fair trade, resulting in better consumer protection. The US enacted the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (or more commonly known as Federal Lemon Law) in 1975 that, among the many clauses contained within, states “the supplier must provide, at the consumer’s choice, either a replacement or a full refund if, after a reasonable number of tries, you are unable to repair the product.”

 

In Malaysia, we have no such laws but we do have this thing called Consumer Protection Act (CPA) that was gazetted in 1999 which states that all suppliers must not conduct business relation to goods and services that is misleading or deceptive, or is likely to mislead or deceive, the public as to the nature, manufacturing process, characteristics, suitability for a purpose, or quantity, of the goods. For more details, you can read about the CPA here: akta_perlindunganpengguna1999

 

That’s nice to know especially when you buy a car that’s been advertised as high quality and reliable only to discover otherwise a few months down the road. In the event there are defects, the CPA states that “Where imported or locally manufactured goods are supplied to a consumer, there shall be implied a guarantee that the manufacturer and the supplier will take reasonable action to ensure that facilities for the repair of the goods and the supply of spare parts for the goods are reasonably available for a reasonable period after the goods are so supplied.”

 

The ambiguity arises from the interpretation of what is considered “reasonable” and in this, the law seems to work in favor of the manufacturers. The service center may take 6-months to bring parts in, another 6-months to deliver the vehicle and they could still argue that they are following the repair operating procedures and you, as the consumer can’t do much to say otherwise. The other issue with the CPA is that under its purview, The Tribunal For Consumer Claims (TCC) is formed and has jurisdiction of not more than RM 25,000.00 filed within 3 years of the dispute. This severely limits consumer protection as vehicles sold here aren’t cheap if you’re seeking a full refund/replacement, the TCC would have to ask you to seek reparation at a conventional court. A certain motorist by the name of O J Yong discovered this the hard way back in 2012.

 

Not everyone can afford legal fees and not every legal action would result in your winning, for reasons aforementioned about the definition of “reasonable”

 

But all is not lost such as the case of Puncak Niaga (M) Sdn Bhd vs NZ Wheels Sdn Bhd, Daimler Chrysler Malaysia Sdn Bhd and Daimler Chrysler AG where Puncak Niaga purchased a brand new Mercedes Benz S350L in March 2006 as a company vehicle and had numerous breakdowns relating to the vehicle being unable to start in the morning. After 6 similar occurrences within a year, Puncak Niaga was given the assurance that the problem is fixed and would not happen again – except it did happen again two months later and Puncak Niaga refused to take the car back and demanded a new vehicle as compensation.

NZ Wheels refused and Puncak Niaga sued.

Puncak Niaga won,

NZ appealed at High Court and won.

Puncak Niaga appealed the appeal and subsequently won, on grounds that the S350L was not in fact and in law of acceptable quality. If you want to read more about the case, you can download the Court of Appeal’s decision here: W-02(IM)-2348-2009

 

It is important to note that being unhappy with the service/goods is a separate issue from posting disparaging messages on your car. You can pursue legal recourse in claiming against the manufacturer for defects but the manufacturer may pursue you for slander if you do what Ms Puteri and Mr Ross did. They will be seen as two different issues, independent of one another and in most cases, plastering such comments on your car, to be seen publicly would almost guarantee a lose-lose situation to you. If the situation is relating to being unhappy because of voided warranty due to the actions of the owner, it is a crystal-clear case of being malicious and the court would almost certainly find you guilty. This has nothing to do with the manufacturers pressuring/bullying anyone; this is outright stupidity and no, the customer is not-always-right.

 

Why then didn’t companies such as Volkswagen Group Malaysia take action against the group of owners who protested at their HQ with banners, honks and lots of less-than-flattering stickers on their cars? That’s the prerogative of the company. Perhaps they felt to sue those who went would have blown the whole issue up to epic proportions that does little in restoring confidence to the brand.

But that does not mean they do not have right to take you to court. They’ve probably weighed the merits of all options and chose to respond in a more positive manner.

 

So guys, the next time when you think it’s a great idea to stick Very Worrisome labels on your car because of the ineptitude of service centres – well, think again. Do consult your lawyers before doing anything dramatic.