Recent decisions of the Consumer Protection Department at the Ministry of Economy and Trade have been highlighted on social media, mainly Twitter and WhatsApp, especially when it closed the showrooms of four car dealers.
The Department said in its report that “the reason for the closure is that car dealers tried to cheat buyers by selling them repaired vehicles as if they were brand new. The closure decision was made based on section 18 of Law No. 8 for 2008.”
For the consumer to be aware of what is happening, we should address Law No. 8 of 2008 on consumer protection.
The definition of product defect in article (1) is “any deficiency in the value of goods and services or usefulness according to what they were intended for, leading to entirely or partially depriving the consumer from product and/or service benefit.”
According to this definition, the cars were neither deficient nor depriving consumers of the benefit of what they were intended for. However, article (2) of Consumer Rights stipulates that the customer has the right to:
1. Receive correct information and data;
2. Free choice of selecting goods and services having their qualities matching their features;
3. Receive information concerning the protection of his legitimate rights;
4. File lawsuits if need be.
After reviewing the above rights, we can conclude that the car dealers gave consumers access to the cars to be purchased, let them test-drive the vehicles, and gave them the choice to buy them or not.
The fraud the Department based its decision on is related to Article 6, which says: “The product is deemed fake or corrupt if it doesn’t match the prescribed standards, is unusable or is past its validity period.”
The cars in question were not fraudulent because they were usable and matched the standards of the GCC Standardisation Organisation and Qatar’s specifications. Since the consumers had inspected the cars, there was no need to specifically tell them that the cars had undergone minor repairs.
On the seller’s commitment regarding the cars’ condition, there is nothing in Article 15 indicating that the agent is required to disclose any external repairs done to cars.
Since the consumers had inspected the cars and found them satisfactory, it resolves the issue of fraud.
Car dealerships traditionally check a car before delivery in what is known as Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI), which is a procedure carried out by car dealers worldwide, not just in Qatar.
During the PDI, the dealer checks the car before delivery to the customer. For example, the agent may find an expired battery, a damaged tire or broken wiper blade. His duty is to replace these. If the paint has any scratches, the agent has to repaint the vehicle.
We must not forget that the car is not a domestic good; it came from a factory in its country of origin, was transported to the harbour, loaded onto a cargo ship, unloaded after its arrival at its destination port, and stored in a warehouse until it was sold. All this requires a lot of handling over several months, making it obvious that damage is likely to occur.
In this case, the dealers did not change the nature of the commodity, nor its shape, and ultimately allowed buyers to fully inspect the cars so that they may not claim ignorance about their condition.
Article 18 states that the Department’s Managing Director is allowed to close the place where the violation occurred for a period not exceeding one month for the first violation.
If the Department claims that dealers had committed fraud, as opposed to what I personally believe, and this was the first violation for each car agency, why was the maximum penalty applied? Unless there are other reasons that the administration does not wish to disclose.
Closing car dealerships for a month is different from the closure of a butchery, bakery or a restaurant, for which we can find alternatives elsewhere in the city; there is no alternative to a dealer in a specific brand of car.
The closure decision:
1. Harmed customers who had purchased cars from the dealers, especially those who had booked vehicles and were awaiting delivery;
2. Harmed the dealers, who have to pay rents and salaries to dozens of staff without any dividend to cover expenses, and who suffered long-term damage to their reputation;
3. Deprived the employees from receiving overtime or commissions on car sales.
In conclusion, I will not blame the judicial officers or question their qualifications, but it is shameful to call automobile dealers “cheaters” for selling repaired vehicles.
I personally believe that they were not cheaters, especially since these dealers have a long history of sincere work. It would have been better to penalise them with a fine, part of which could have been used to compensate the affected customers.
