Four-ring fight after Audi TT burns

This guys's Twitter account handle is tcmabasa. He document all the events leading up to the car catching fire - videos, job cards, invoices.

Shocking service from Audi, that's mabasa, not mabaso.
 
Who's mabaso supposed to be? Guy in the article is Mabasa.

AVernD's original post said Mabaso, I just corrected that as I couldn't find the guy on twitter with the wrong spelling. He edited while I was typing.
 
Damn, have you seen how much Audi charges for a sub and 6x9's.

280caca32f520887afccf07713d89b49.jpg


Blatant evidence of the extreme lengths dealers go to price gouge, damn I've seen some really high end speaker drivers go for lots of money but those prices are insane.
 
Seem Emperor TeeCee is really letting his twitter name go to his head.
Paid out by insurance.
Offered compensation by Audi when they had no obligation too.
Rejects said offer.

And now wants to throw his toys out the cot because?
 
So Audi posted a response on Facebook.

The customer signed a declaration that the dealer could over-inflate the invoice by R250 000 to the finance company, to pay his residual on his trade in car.

So that's why he wants more money from Audi - he owes the bank more than the insurance pay out.
 
Yes looks like the dealership involved themselves in a fraudulent transaction there. They can't hide behind a signed disclosure, they were party to a fraud and are complicit in lying to the finance house. And if Audi feel they're in the right why don't they interdict Mabasa and then sue him digging a deeper financial hole for him when he continues with his defamation campaign.
 
Bit unethical of Audi to do that, and I hope the bank nails them for it...

But Mr-I-WANT also needs to be charged with fraud for it as well....
 
The customer signed a declaration that the dealer could over-inflate the invoice by R250 000 to the finance company, to pay his residual on his trade in car.
Both parties should be charged with fraud!

So that's why he wants more money from Audi - he owes the bank more than the insurance pay out.
As jy dom is moet jy k@k!
 
Surely that's not above board?

Well, a 110% bond is legal, so I would love a response from a lawyer type person on this. Anyway, would a diligent bank not pick up when a R750k car now costs R1bar? I think the bank knew about it and found it accepatable. Most of the time the bank representative sits on the dealer floor.
 
Well, a 110% bond is legal, so I would love a response from a lawyer type person on this. Anyway, would a diligent bank not pick up when a R750k car now costs R1bar? I think the bank knew about it and found it accepatable. Most of the time the bank representative sits on the dealer floor.
The most I've seen was 105% bond. It was a specific product offered by one bank in the past and they actually called the product a 105. It was meant as a 100% bond + cost.
Cars isn't the same though as they don't get a bond registered over them and the value is much more subjective.
The banks or the car dealer should actually carry much more of the risk for their reckless lending. The car is the security. No car. Tough shît. Everybody should lose not just the customer.
 
Last edited:
Surely if he gets anything out of Audi his insurers are going to demand their settlement of the accident back. If Audi is liable it is not his fight, it is his insurers who must go after audi for compensation if the manufacturer is at fault for the fire. He can't have it both ways.

^^
 
Well, a 110% bond is legal
Massive difference between you asking the bank for an extra 10% and you colluding with a 3rd party to lie to the bank about what something is worth.

Having said that I agree the bank would/should have known about it, surely they know what cars are worth before they approve the loan.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X